Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Supreme Court facing several internet "freedom of speech" cases that conflict between protecting terroristic threats and racist hate speech. So, they'll protect both   (cnbc.com) divider line
102
    More: Scary, Law, Government, Internet, Lawsuit, Freedom of speech, Civil and political rights, Legal liability, Blog  
•       •       •

1844 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Jan 2023 at 4:30 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



102 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
edmo [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 1:06:23 PM  
ITSP.JPG
 
AirForceVet [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 2:02:59 PM  
Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.
 
phalamir [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 2:36:42 PM  

AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.


I see you have never taken a look at any US politics before 2000 and only Democratic political ads since then.
 
AirForceVet [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 2:49:54 PM  

phalamir: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

I see you have never taken a look at any US politics before 2000 and only Democratic political ads since then.


So you are confessing to be a Republican or just a "Fark Independent?"

Let's stay with the current danger to our Constitution and our country: Republican fascism, shall we?

Deflection and obfuscation are so Nazi, you know?
 
Lsherm [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 3:11:30 PM  
Part of our problem is that we don't enforce anti-monopoly laws anymore, so we've let companies become so large that they are de-facto communication tools for the entire country.  In the old days when this happened, there was heavy regulation about what those companies were allowed to do (see the Ma Bells) in the market.
 
hubiestubert [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 3:29:35 PM  
At this point, I think that there is a majority of Justices that think democracy is boring. They're gonna spice it up.
 
phalamir [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 4:00:40 PM  

AirForceVet: phalamir: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

I see you have never taken a look at any US politics before 2000 and only Democratic political ads since then.

So you are confessing to be a Republican or just a "Fark Independent?"

Let's stay with the current danger to our Constitution and our country: Republican fascism, shall we?

Deflection and obfuscation are so Nazi, you know?


No.  I am saying that if you think lies, encouraging violence against opponents, and calls for terrorism are outliers, then you could only have been looking at political speech by Democrats since 2000.  Because only in that carefully curated and proscribed set are you not going to find 90% of political rhetoric comprised of lies, encouraging violence against opponents, and calls for terrorism.  Shiat, from 1830-1970, those were considered overly polite political discourse.  If you are thinking they were outside the scope of the First Amendment, then you have to also believe the very Founding Fathers who wrote the First Amendment broke it by merely breathing - and that no one else followed it at all afterwards.  If beating someone in to a coma was considered a laudatory act for him mildly suggesting you need to slow roll your racism, then it was hardly a First Amendment violation.  The only way you can violated the First Amendment is to be poor, POC, non-fundiban, queer, and/or to the left of Himmler - then your very existence is a violation.  But if you are rich, White, evangelical psychopath, straight, and a raging Nazi - there is no way to you can violate the First Amendment.  That isn't based upon any philosophical masturbation on the subject, but a cold, factual examination of the realities on the ground since the damn thing was written.  Since you consider that to mean I'm a Trumpist, you are just as ultra-righty as I am - more so, since you claim to have accepted the Klan shilling once, and the military have always been the first line of curtailing American's First Amendment rights by the barrel of a gun.  Thank you for your service, murderbot.
 
Thoreny
2023-01-30 4:32:44 PM  
preview.redd.itView Full Size
 
Weaver95
2023-01-30 4:33:35 PM  
Highly advanced encryption on games, movies and music gets cracked open on a daily basis allegedly costing our infotainment industry billions every day and THEY can't stop people from trading information and sharing data...

Go ahead. Pass whatever laws ya want. Unless SCOTUS intends to outlaw computer programming, ain't nothing gonna stop the signal.
 
MattytheMouse
2023-01-30 4:39:06 PM  

AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.


I'm a proponent of political violence, myself. Of course, I feel like it's crucial to understand that there's a massive farking difference between setting a Well's Fargo on fire because the cops keep extrajudicially murdering people with impunity, and attacking the speaker of the house's husband because you read on the internet that they're cracking babies open to drink them like caprisun pouches. One is more justifiable than the other.
 
UltimaCS
2023-01-30 4:39:38 PM  

phalamir: Words words words


I believe what you're trying to say is that Republicans have always used terrorism in political speech. The issue now is that they're making it a 1st Amendment issue just because they got banned on Twitter.
 
Gin Buddy [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 4:41:07 PM  
"The question of free speech is always more complicated than it looks," said David Brody, managing attorney of the Digital Justice Initiative at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law. "There's a freedom to speak freely. But there's also the freedom to be free from harassment, to be free from discrimination."

Brody said whenever the parameters of content moderation get tweaked, people need to consider "whose speech gets silenced when that dial gets turned? Whose speech gets silenced because they are too fearful to speak out in the new environment that is created?"


Okay, but who gives a shiat if people do or don't speak out online?

If you think you're going to be persecuted on Twitter after the changes, then quit going on Twitter. Same with Facebook and the rest.

Also, WTF are you posting that you think you'll be silenced by new rules intended to limit hate speech?
 
baronbloodbath [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 4:41:38 PM  
The Court could also take up Novak v. Parma. That case determines if it's illegal to mock the cops.
 
Palined Parenthood
2023-01-30 4:41:58 PM  

phalamir: AirForceVet: phalamir: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

I see you have never taken a look at any US politics before 2000 and only Democratic political ads since then.

So you are confessing to be a Republican or just a "Fark Independent?"

Let's stay with the current danger to our Constitution and our country: Republican fascism, shall we?

Deflection and obfuscation are so Nazi, you know?

No.  I am saying that if you think lies, encouraging violence against opponents, and calls for terrorism are outliers, then you could only have been looking at political speech by Democrats since 2000.  Because only in that carefully curated and proscribed set are you not going to find 90% of political rhetoric comprised of lies, encouraging violence against opponents, and calls for terrorism.  Shiat, from 1830-1970, those were considered overly polite political discourse.  If you are thinking they were outside the scope of the First Amendment, then you have to also believe the very Founding Fathers who wrote the First Amendment broke it by merely breathing - and that no one else followed it at all afterwards.  If beating someone in to a coma was considered a laudatory act for him mildly suggesting you need to slow roll your racism, then it was hardly a First Amendment violation.  The only way you can violated the First Amendment is to be poor, POC, non-fundiban, queer, and/or to the left of Himmler - then your very existence is a violation.  But if you are rich, White, evangelical psychopath, straight, and a raging Nazi - there is no way to you can violate the First Amendment.  That isn't based upon any philosophical masturbation on the subject, but a cold, factual examination of the realities on the ground since the damn thing was written.  Since you consider that to mean I'm a Trumpist, you are just as ultra-righty as I am - more so, since you claim to have accepted the Klan shilling once, and the military have always been the first line of curtailing American's First Amendment rights by the barrel of a gun.  Thank you for your service, murderbot.


So yeah I'd like a French Dip & Swiss medium combo with a cherry turnover, and do you know if you guys will ever bring back the Arby-Q sandwich? I really liked that one
 
emtwo
2023-01-30 4:44:47 PM  
Section 230 is long overdue for an overhaul.
 
Weatherkiss [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 4:44:56 PM  

MattytheMouse: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

I'm a proponent of political violence, myself. Of course, I feel like it's crucial to understand that there's a massive farking difference between setting a Well's Fargo on fire because the cops keep extrajudicially murdering people with impunity, and attacking the speaker of the house's husband because you read on the internet that they're cracking babies open to drink them like caprisun pouches. One is more justifiable than the other.


The Capri sun babies are the more justifiable option, right?
 
MattytheMouse
2023-01-30 4:45:15 PM  
Also, I'm farking exhausted with how much free speech discourse revolves around people being assholes on Twitter, because conservatives have confused being an unhinged antisocial lunatic with a viable political opinion.

Again: between the former president of the US targeting private citizens free speech, the former Vice President staging counter protests against that citizen, and an illegally acting DHS head using unmarked feds in rental vans to disappear protestors, I truly do not give a shiat on a shingle if the new conservative thought leader of the month got banned from Twitter for saying something along the lines of "I'm not racist, but I think Peurto Ricans belong in cages."
 
MattytheMouse
2023-01-30 4:45:40 PM  

Weatherkiss: MattytheMouse: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

I'm a proponent of political violence, myself. Of course, I feel like it's crucial to understand that there's a massive farking difference between setting a Well's Fargo on fire because the cops keep extrajudicially murdering people with impunity, and attacking the speaker of the house's husband because you read on the internet that they're cracking babies open to drink them like caprisun pouches. One is more justifiable than the other.

The Capri sun babies are the more justifiable option, right?


*Sluuuuurp.*
 
Puglio
2023-01-30 4:45:48 PM  
"Because if on the one hand, you say, 'Well, if you carry terrorist-related content or you carry certain other content, you're potentially liable for it.' And they then say, 'But states can force you to carry that content.' There's some tension there between those two kinds of positions," Jain said. "And so I think the court has to think of the cases holistically in terms of what kind of regime overall it's going to be creating for online service providers."

That's sweet, he thinks hypocrisy and inconsistency matter on the high court.
 
Tarl3k
2023-01-30 4:46:33 PM  
They'll protect the racism but not the terrorism, since they can always OOGA BOOGA!! the terrorism onto a minority of their choice.
 
Kit Fister [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 4:46:36 PM  
ANyone else remember the good old days when the warring politicians killed each other in a duel, or just beat each other senseless on the senate floor?

GOod times, good times.
 
Pants full of macaroni!! [BareFark]
2023-01-30 4:49:04 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
ElwoodCuse
2023-01-30 4:49:32 PM  

Thoreny: [preview.redd.it image 455x437]


"oh you want deregulation?"

"no not those views"

"ah, lower taxes?"

"no, you know the ones"
 
bighairyguy [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 4:50:12 PM  
Expected footnote to the ruling:

Re: George Santos, he can say anything he wants.  Everything he says is a lie but we all have so much fun them it's acceptable.
 
MikeyFuccon
2023-01-30 4:50:33 PM  
...even if Google technically wins at the Supreme Court, it's possible justices try to "split the baby" in establishing a new test of when Section 230 protections should apply, such as in the case of algorithms.

Pretty sure King Solomon's approach would have been closer to something that effectively shut down the civilian internet, just to see how much people cared.

New York Times (print edition): "Solomon Court shuts down civilian internet. Here's how this might help the Democrats in the 2024 election."

New York Post (print edition): "SOLOMON COURT TO SILICON VALLEY GROOMERS: DROP DEAD."
 
Kit Fister [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 4:50:45 PM  

Weatherkiss: MattytheMouse: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

I'm a proponent of political violence, myself. Of course, I feel like it's crucial to understand that there's a massive farking difference between setting a Well's Fargo on fire because the cops keep extrajudicially murdering people with impunity, and attacking the speaker of the house's husband because you read on the internet that they're cracking babies open to drink them like caprisun pouches. One is more justifiable than the other.

The Capri sun babies are the more justifiable option, right?


Fark user imageView Full Size


Wat are you talking about?
 
Kazan
2023-01-30 4:50:46 PM  

Thoreny: [preview.redd.it image 455x437]


FYI: that's an antivaxxer thing from canada
 
AAAAGGGGHHHH
2023-01-30 4:53:25 PM  
I know that "Null" (the guy who owns & runs Kiwi Farms) shrieks like a stuck pig whenever the topic of repealing Section 230 comes up. He knows that it's the only reason why his garbage site is still running and without it his little stalker cult would be R.I.P.
 
George Santos' taint
2023-01-30 4:54:36 PM  

AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.


Same goes for the way the 2nd has been hijacked by special interests.
 
Puglio
2023-01-30 4:55:46 PM  
The questions are basically 1) Can the state force you to host hate speech and threats posted by Republicans? and 2) Can a company be held liable for terrorism-related content users post on its platform?

Ruling in favor of the GOP in No. 1 is a given.

For No. 2, it's less clear but I expect them to say yes they can be liable, because it's the stupid ruling that would create the most chaos. But they could easily side with big business instead.
 
Weatherkiss [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 4:55:49 PM  

Kit Fister: Weatherkiss: MattytheMouse: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

I'm a proponent of political violence, myself. Of course, I feel like it's crucial to understand that there's a massive farking difference between setting a Well's Fargo on fire because the cops keep extrajudicially murdering people with impunity, and attacking the speaker of the house's husband because you read on the internet that they're cracking babies open to drink them like caprisun pouches. One is more justifiable than the other.

The Capri sun babies are the more justifiable option, right?

[Fark user image 542x700]

Wat are you talking about?


I don't want any freedom-loving patriots getting in my way of cracking open a cool refreshing baby and sucking the juice out from inside before I go eat my avocado toast and have a few abortions.
 
gyruss
2023-01-30 4:55:59 PM  
Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act
 
mistahtom
2023-01-30 4:56:27 PM  
➡Nebulously derived "Child online protection" laws.

➡You have to show proof of photo ID to have any account anywhere.

➡VPNs outlawed

➡ISP's charging "maintenance fees" to accommodate new rulings and bipartisan-derived regulations.

➡Paid privatized access to reach your audience/friends/family.

➡No more real human comments section on websites.

➡Can't funny Mistahtom's crazy psychotic premonitions

➡Divergent thinking required to survive.

/🥸
 
Kit Fister [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 4:56:33 PM  

George Santos' taint: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

Same goes for the way the 2nd has been hijacked by special interests.


Yes, like we're going to listen to someone named "George Santos' Taint."   We're onto you, Santos.
 
austerity101 [BareFark]
2023-01-30 4:56:49 PM  

gyruss: Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act


Not sure the Supreme Court is gonna read all that.
 
Kit Fister [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 4:58:41 PM  

Weatherkiss: Kit Fister: Weatherkiss: MattytheMouse: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

I'm a proponent of political violence, myself. Of course, I feel like it's crucial to understand that there's a massive farking difference between setting a Well's Fargo on fire because the cops keep extrajudicially murdering people with impunity, and attacking the speaker of the house's husband because you read on the internet that they're cracking babies open to drink them like caprisun pouches. One is more justifiable than the other.

The Capri sun babies are the more justifiable option, right?

[Fark user image 542x700]

Wat are you talking about?

I don't want any freedom-loving patriots getting in my way of cracking open a cool refreshing baby and sucking the juice out from inside before I go eat my avocado toast and have a few abortions.


Fark user imageView Full Size


Nope nope nope nope nope.
 
Night Train to Wakanda
2023-01-30 4:59:36 PM  
I can't wait for the cry baby pussies with their nipples tweaked about my Charlie Hebdo joke to get bent over. So I can keep telling lone Wolf shooters to empty mags inside Fox News and be lauded as heroes until they actually do it.

Stop being biatches and start using malicious compliance. This is the fascist world they want? Give it to them with smoking barrels and ask if their rights are infringed upon later.
 
Smelly Pirate Hooker
2023-01-30 5:00:55 PM  
I'm sure the Supreme Court will not fark this up at all, LOL.
 
George Santos' taint
2023-01-30 5:03:57 PM  

Kit Fister: George Santos' taint: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

Same goes for the way the 2nd has been hijacked by special interests.

Yes, like we're going to listen to someone named "George Santos' Taint."   We're onto you, Santos.


As a Fister and me being a taint I wonder if we haven't crossed paths before or hung around the same crowd.
 
Kit Fister [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 5:07:25 PM  

George Santos' taint: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

Same goes for the way the 2nd has been hijacked by special interests.


ALso (and I can't believe i'm talking to a liar's taint), it's really farking stupid the way that they've been pushing the bounds of what makes sense for civilians to own. Not out of line for playing on stupidity and fear, mind, but definitely stupid.
 
guestguy
2023-01-30 5:07:35 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I'm sure the Supreme Court will not fark this up at all, LOL.


Stop that...you'll make Brett sad.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Stands With A Tiny Fist [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 5:08:13 PM  
This thread needs more hedgehog.
 
Kit Fister [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 5:09:08 PM  

George Santos' taint: Kit Fister: George Santos' taint: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

Same goes for the way the 2nd has been hijacked by special interests.

Yes, like we're going to listen to someone named "George Santos' Taint."   We're onto you, Santos.

As a Fister and me being a taint I wonder if we haven't crossed paths before or hung around the same crowd.


I've met some pretty hot ladies with impressive taints, yes.
 
DarnoKonrad
2023-01-30 5:11:48 PM  
We could have avoided that whole civil war thing if people had just realized that buying people was free speech.  Citizens United makes it all so clear now.
 
guestguy
2023-01-30 5:11:54 PM  

Kit Fister: George Santos' taint: Kit Fister: George Santos' taint: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

Same goes for the way the 2nd has been hijacked by special interests.

Yes, like we're going to listen to someone named "George Santos' Taint."   We're onto you, Santos.

As a Fister and me being a taint I wonder if we haven't crossed paths before or hung around the same crowd.

I've met some pretty hot ladies with impressive taints, yes.


"This one taint, I swear to God, you could project a movie on at a drive-in."
 
jake3988 [OhFark]
2023-01-30 5:13:24 PM  
If you want all of social media to disappear, sure, blow up section 230.

But that means ALL social media.

Fark?  Gone
Youtube? Gone
Facebook? Gone
Twitter? Gone
Mastadon? Gone
Discord? Gone
Reddit? Gone
Digg (yeah, that still exists, apparently)? Gone

It would ALL go away.

But Fark is full of idiots, so I'm sure you'll all continue to cheer for your own demise.
 
Evil Mackerel
2023-01-30 5:17:55 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
jake3988 [OhFark]
2023-01-30 5:18:55 PM  
Also, the government telling me what I can and can't put onto the internet is a monumentally stupid idea.

That's how North Koreas and Chinas happen.

In no universe do I want my government to tell me that.

Piss off.

/You don't think some far left or far right jackwagon is going to hijack that to ban everything they don't like, you're delusional.
 
Kit Fister [TotalFark]
2023-01-30 5:21:32 PM  

guestguy: Kit Fister: George Santos' taint: Kit Fister: George Santos' taint: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

Same goes for the way the 2nd has been hijacked by special interests.

Yes, like we're going to listen to someone named "George Santos' Taint."   We're onto you, Santos.

As a Fister and me being a taint I wonder if we haven't crossed paths before or hung around the same crowd.

I've met some pretty hot ladies with impressive taints, yes.

"This one taint, I swear to God, you could project a movie on at a drive-in."


Yeah, I mean, you should've seen the size of the one occupying the whitehouse between 2016 and 2020.
 
Lady J [recently expired TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-30 5:22:52 PM  

phalamir: AirForceVet: Lie and encourage violence to intimidate opponents? Threaten to commit terrorism?

I think the First Amendment was never intended for such. But, here we are.

I see you have never taken a look at any US politics before 2000 and only Democratic political ads since then.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More Farking, less working

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.