trump wants to make JQP libel for every instance of 'n*gger' on gs-us

[C.Martel]

Trump signs executive order attacking Section 230 legal protections for Facebook and Twitter
Reuters May 28, 2020 2:30 PM

(Reuters) — President Donald Trump said he will introduce legislation that may scrap or weaken a law that has long protected internet companies, including Twitter and Facebook, an extraordinary attempt to intervene in the media that experts said was unlikely to survive legal scrutiny.

Trump signed an executive order on Thursday afternoon after attacking Twitter for tagging his tweets about unsubstantiated claims of fraud in mail-in voting with a warning prompting readers to fact-check the posts.

Trump said we may “remove or change” Section 230 of a law known as the Communications Decency Act through legislation so social media companies will not enjoy this legal immunity, which protects such platforms from liability for content posted by their users.

The President also said U.S. Attorney General William Barr will pursue said legislation to regulate social media companies.

On Wednesday, Reuters reported the White House’s plan to modify Section 230 based on a copy of a draft order.

Facebook and Twitter did not immediately comment on the executive order.

The President’s remarks and the draft order, as written, attempts to circumvent Congress and the courts in directing changes to long-established interpretations of Section 230. It represents the latest attempt by Trump to use the tools of the Presidency to force private companies to change policies that he believes are not favorable to him.

“In terms of presidential efforts to limit critical commentary about themselves, I think one would have to go back to the Sedition Act of 1798 — which made it illegal to say false things about the president and certain other public officials — to find an attack supposedly rooted in law by a president on any entity which comments or prints comments about public issues and public people,” said First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams.

Others like Jack Balkin, a Yale University constitutional law professor, said “The president is trying to frighten, coerce, scare, cajole social media companies to leave him alone and not do what Twitter has just done to him.”

Still, Twitter’s shares were down 4.4% on Thursday. Facebook was down 1.7 percent and Google parent Alphabet Inc were up slightly.

Trump, who uses Twitter heavily to promote his policies and insult his opponents, has long claimed without evidence that the service is biased in favor of Democrats. He and his supporters have leveled the same unsubstantiated charges against Facebook, which Trump’s presidential campaign uses heavily as an advertising vehicle.

https://venturebeat.com/2020/05/28/trump-signs-executive-order-attacking-section-230-legal-protections-for-facebook-and-twitter/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZL55BMVcAAX3I1?format=jpg&name=large

[C.Martel]

The pre-trump years were better than the trump years.

trump makes "thought crimes" 'illegal' in 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDZwzkahh7g

[Hitch]

What I like about Trump is everyone hates him. The media hates him, the dems do, most of you guys on this forum do too.

It's popular for everyone these days to be Anti-Trump.

I will vote for Trump in the fall for this very reason.

[osoab]

I think your take is wrong.

I took it that he wants to carve out for megacorps. Not saying this will not be the beginning of the end. JQP is not adding commentary to every post.

I am surprised their is no disclaimer at the bottom of every page saying everything is for discussion and entertainment purposes only. JQP only has a few rules. There are only a handful of words we are not allowed to type.

[osoab]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDEHpvwcekQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDEHpvwcekQ

[ziero0]

Libel is not liable.

[keehah]

It's popular for everyone these days to be Anti-Trump.

I will vote for Trump in the fall for this very reason.

It is pretty hard anymore to find any logical reason to vote.

If Hillary had been here for all this, we could hope voting Republican in the fall could change things.

[C.Martel]

I think your take is wrong.

I took it that he wants to carve out for megacorps. Not saying this will not be the beginning of the end. JQP is not adding commentary to every post.

I am surprised their is no disclaimer at the bottom of every page saying everything is for discussion and entertainment purposes only. JQP only has a few rules. There are only a handful of words we are not allowed to type.

Twitter is not adding comments on every trump tweet. JQP commented on some of our posts. This getting rid of Section 230 for some could be the beginning of the end of internet freedom of speech.

You don't think the ADL/SPLC terrorists want to get rid of Section 230.

[C.Martel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDEHpvwcekQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDEHpvwcekQ


Kevin Barrett supports trumps move too. However, these actions against section 230 can be used against free of speech for everybody.

It is twitters platform to censor trump. And it is twitters platform to give guideline on what speech they want. Others should allow total freedom of speech that has been protected by the 1st amendment since the start of the internet.

[EE_]

What I like about Trump is everyone hates him. The media hates him, the dems do, most of you guys on this forum do too.

It's popular for everyone these days to be Anti-Trump.

I will vote for Trump in the fall for this very reason.

Yep, when all the people I don't like hate Trump, I know he is the right man for the job.

[Hitch]

Yep, when all the people I don't like hate Trump, I know he is the right man for the job.

There's actually quite a few Trump supporters where I'm at. For CA, it's pretty good here. We even have Benny, a Vietnamese fisherman, who barely speaks english. He's wearing a Trump 2020 hat, and flies an American Flag off his skiff. We barter sometimes, on an honor base.

[BrewTech]

Yep, when all the people I don't like hate Trump, I know he is the right man for the job.


Enemy of Enemy = Friend.

Right?

[EE_]

Enemy of Enemy = Friend.

Right?

Not actually. All these corrupt powerful people that screwed up our country/world want Trump gone = Trump doing something right.

Better?

What's funny, I thought at one time the people on this forum wanted someone to shake up the system. A Trump presidency has shaken the system to it's core! A lot of it is from the global elite and Democrats reaction to his presidency.

I guess I was wrong, most here would rather the system go back to the Democrat elite being in control. Everything might be more calm while we have all our liberties and rights stripped away, with the majority of people on welfare, in a country overrun with illegals and foreigners. Democrat Utopia!

[dys]

How can anyone be a member of this forum and still support Trump?
Are you kidding me? Open your eyes now, before it is too late. The information is out there, go find it while you still can.

Wow.

[Hitch]

How can anyone be a member of this forum and still support Trump?
Are you kidding me? Open your eyes now, before it is too late. The information is out there, go find it while you still can.

Wow.

If not Trump, who do I support? Give me help here. Offer a solution.

EE is right, nobody on THIS forum has any solutions to make our country better. Nobody does anything but complain.

That's fine, but the fall election is going to be here before you know it. Either you vote for the Dems, or Trump. Or don't vote at all and sit it out.

[dys]

If not Trump, who do I support? Give me help here. Offer a solution.

EE is right, nobody on THIS forum has any solutions to make our country better. Nobody does anything but complain.

That's fine, but the fall election is going to be here before you know it. Either you vote for the Dems, or Trump. Or don't vote at all and sit it out.

You don't support anyone, because they are all in the tank. That is IF we even have an election in November (looking doubtful at this point). The bad guys love double binds and false dichotomies. Dems vs. republicans is playing their game. Take the half hour you were planning on driving to the poll and voting, and use it for something that will actually matter. Put some heat on one of your 'elected' officials that have sold you out. Or better yet, use it to pray. Check out the sermon that I posted in the Religion forum for some ideas.

[EE_]

If not Trump, who do I support? Give me help here. Offer a solution.

EE is right, nobody on THIS forum has any solutions to make our country better. Nobody does anything but complain.

That's fine, but the fall election is going to be here before you know it. Either you vote for the Dems, or Trump. Or don't vote at all and sit it out.

The attitude here is to not try to do anything, sit it out and let civilization fall. It's starting to look like they are getting that collapse of civilization now with the riots, while sitting it out.

At this point, gsus members are a lost cause, because they don't believe promoting America first, strong borders, protect 2nd Amendment rights, religious rights, no climate accord, no Nafta, make NATO pay, bring manufacturing home, etc., is beneficial to our country. Half the country is standing for patriotism and these values like they haven't in a long time, because of Trump...much like the opposite left's programming/indoctrinating the youth for many years that we are now seeing the results of.

Everyone must choose, 1. stand with the patriots, try to fight for civilization, 2. side with the leftist to destroy civilization, 3. just sit it out and let society collapse. At least with the 3rd option they can tell everyone they didn't have anything to do with the collapse...if that lets them sleep better at night. 4. end your miserable hopeless life.

IMO, 1 and 4 are the best options.

[ziero0]

Everyone must choose, 1. stand with the patriots, try to fight for civilization, 2. side with the leftist to destroy civilization


Let's put it in perspective. First, Civilization is the process of converting a common law crime (actual damages) to a Roman civil law crime (money owed for a perceived crime).

Second, liberals are not necessarily bad. The liberals are the reason we don't speak KINGS English. Conservatives went by the name TORY.

Biden would be classed TORY. GO TRUMP!!!

[Neuro]

Not actually. All these corrupt powerful people that screwed up our country/world want Trump gone = Trump doing something right.

Better?

What's funny, I thought at one time the people on this forum wanted someone to shake up the system. A Trump presidency has shaken the system to it's core! A lot of it is from the global elite and Democrats reaction to his presidency.

I guess I was wrong, most here would rather the system go back to the Democrat elite being in control. Everything might be more calm while we have all our liberties and rights stripped away, with the majority of people on welfare, in a country overrun with illegals and foreigners. Democrat Utopia!

The liberty to go outside your house whenever you feel like it? Your liberty to run your business as you see fit? I am not saying it would be better with a democrat, probably worse, but still it has been quite remarkable restrictions on your liberties under Trump...

[Ares]

The liberty to go outside your house whenever you feel like it? Your liberty to run your business as you see fit? I am not saying it would be better with a democrat, probably worse, but still it has been quite remarkable restrictions on your liberties under Trump...

To be fair, those restrictions were not put in place by Trump but each individuals state government. North Dakota governor was under enormous pressure to lock down, but she didn't.

Other state govenors buckled under the pressure from the left and locked down their respective state likely inducing a mortal wound from which they will not recover from. The riots appear to be the final kill, and ironically taking place in cities that have elected Democrats for decades.

[EE_]

Let's put it in perspective. First, Civilization is the process of converting a common law crime (actual damages) to a Roman civil law crime (money owed for a perceived crime).

Second, liberals are not necessarily bad. The liberals are the reason we don't speak KINGS English. Conservatives went by the name TORY.

Biden would be classed TORY. GO TRUMP!!!

Your definition is a bit esoteric...would it have been better to say fight for civilized society?

[EE_]

The liberty to go outside your house whenever you feel like it? Your liberty to run your business as you see fit? I am not saying it would be better with a democrat, probably worse, but still it has been quite remarkable restrictions on your liberties under Trump...

Do you really think Trump can change a globalist/Democrat system put in place decades ago, with many of the same players still abound in government, in less then 4 years?

This country has been sold out a long time ago and all the elected officials, both parties, are in on it. And you think one man can change that corrupt system in less then one term, while fending off 24/7 attacks, crisis, investigations, impeachment and set global policy at the same time?
You guys sure do expect a lot of Trump. More then humanly possible.

Trump is the only president that has gone against this corrupt monster of a system since JFK, the only man that's trying to change this corrupt system in my lifetime.

To even consider Democrat rule might only be worse is laughable, Democrat rule is what we have had for decades, what we have now and what has destroyed our country.

PS: I don't want to hear a damn thing about Ron Paul either, (that many here supported) he had great libertarian views, but he was a weak frail little man that can barely put up a fight to get his underpants on. This giant corrupt machine would have run him over like a steamroller over an ant.

[C.Martel]

Ron Paul Institute has a similar take:

Little Brother Or Big Brother: The Public Applauds As Free Speech Dies On The Internet (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/june/02/little-brother-or-big-brother-the-public-applauds-as-free-speech-dies-on-the-internet/)
Written by Jonathan Turley
Tuesday June 2, 2020

undefined

President Donald Trump’s executive order on social media has left more questions than answers on the ability of the government to regulate companies like Twitter. However, one thing is abundantly clear: the loser in this fight will be free speech. Indeed, the striking thing about this controversy is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are actually advocating for free speech, just different forms of speech controls. Civil libertarians are faced with the “choice” offered by Henry Ford on colors for the Model T Ford “any color … so long as it is black.” In some ways, Trump and Twitter are offering a similar choice on the new model for free speech: Americans can chose between government censorship and private censorship.

The heart of the executive order is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The 1996 legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton was largely an attempt to regulate pornography and struck down in significant part as unconstitutional. Section 230, however, survived and grants any “interactive computer service” (including Internet and social media companies) immunity from most lawsuits over content posted by users. Courts have interpreted the provision to give sweeping immunity for companies like Twitter and Facebook because they simply supply a forum for others to express themselves.

For years, Democrats leaders have called for companies like Facebook and Twitter to monitor and delete material that they deem offensive, false, or misleading. Former Vice President Joe Biden declared in January, “Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one.” In his view, the mere fact that Twitter is allowing others to speak freely is the same as “propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”

Congressional leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff have called for labeling and removal of material with some members directly threatening a legislative crackdown. This week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for resisting speech monitoring and censorship as a matter of free speech. Pelosi lashed out that those who want to preserve a free speech zone are “all about making money,” ignoring free speech advocates who have no financial interest in these companies. Pelosi said that opposing such monitoring means that social media companies simply want “to make money at the expense of the truth and the facts” and are trying to “hide under the freedom of speech.”

Where Democrats want to either remove all protections or force private censorship, Trump seems to want to control protections and create a system of government censorship. Again, the choice allows citizens to select any option so long as it is censorship.

The ‘Big Brother’ problem

There are ample reasons why the executive order is unlikely to succeed in any meaningful way. While the scope of Section 230 is largely the result of judicial interpretation, even judges who have criticized the sweeping immunity have concluded that it must be treated as the intent of Congress, which has done nothing to change it. If the administration seeks to change the scope of this law through agency action at the Federal Communications Commission, it will be immediately and legitimately challenged.

Any attempt to unilaterally alter such a federal law is precisely what Republicans objected to in the Obama administration, when the president repeatedly ordered changes denied by the legislative branch. Such circumvention was unconstitutional under Obama and it would be unconstitutional under Trump. President Trump has declared that he will also be seeking legislative changes, a move that could negate some constitutional challenges. However, the elimination of all protection through legislation (as demanded by Biden) would likely trigger greater limits on expression.

The executive order also empowers the Federal Trade Commission to investigate bias in companies like Twitter removing or labeling material. Such investigations may not in themselves be unlawful, but any action taken against companies for their policies on accuracy would raise serious questions of government censorship, the ultimate scourge under the First Amendment.

Ironically, Democrats now defending Twitter are some of the same members who were previously calling for a possible government crackdown. Moreover, these members have long opposed the concept of free speech protections for corporations, recognized in such cases as Citizen’s United. Nevertheless, they would be on good ground to oppose unilateral executive action despite their silence when President Obama engaged in the same circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from immigration to the environment.

The Little Brother problem

The First Amendment is designed to address government restrictions on free speech. As a private entity, Twitter is not the subject of that amendment. However, private companies can still destroy free speech through private censorship. It is called the “Little Brother problem.” President Trump can be chastised for converting a “Little Brother” into a “Big Brother” problem. However, that does alter the fundamental threat to free speech.

What Twitter did on the Trump tweets — adding fact checking links — was wrong. It was intervening on a political statement to inject its views into the communications between President Trump and his roughly 80 million followers. It is precisely what Democrats have demanded for years and what civil libertarians have vehemently opposed.

Twitter is demanding immunity under Section 230 because it merely supplies a forum for the discussion of others. However, it now wants to be an active part of that discussion. Many disagree on the subject of mail-in voting and its potential for fraud. The warnings posted by Twitter (and deletions demanded by Democrats) invites arbitrary and biased monitoring. Twitter has not posted such warnings on the many false statements made about the Russian investigation or the Steele Dossier or other subjects.

Much of our free speech today occurs on private sites like Twitter and Facebook. The Democrats want private companies to censor or label statements deemed misleading. Such a system would evade First Amendment conflict but it would have an even greater likely impact on free speech than direct government monitoring.

Social media has long been one of the few areas of free and robust speech. While Trump and his critics are now in a fierce battle over the Twitter controversy, it is largely a battle over control of speech, not a battle for free speech. What is striking is how we have all become chumps in rooting for one side or the other when both would curtail our ability to speak freely on social media. It is like being offered the Matrix choice of a blue and red pill, but both leave you in Matrix.

[ziero0]

Your definition is a bit esoteric...would it have been better to say fight for civilized society?

Duty is derived from contract or oath. If you have a contract stay in honor. If you have an oath then do what you took an oath to do.