Trump misunderstands concept of free speech

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
760
118
I'm not gonna participate in this topic anymore. I've said what I wanted to say, and if you don't agree, that's fine.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
This is the basic concept behind why we don't let the government regulate the press: eventually, someone in government starts telling the press what it can and cannot say.
That's exactly what the government did in the case of the Fairness Doctrine. Under it, broadcasters were obliged not only to report on policy issues and controversies of public interest, but report on them impartially as well as represent all positions charitably. The entire reason it was crafted, was to ensure private parties broadcasting on public airwaves would not abuse editorial prerogative to broadcast only on issues and positions relevant and beneficial to those parties' interest. Broadcast media managed just fine for thirty-eight years before the Reagan FCC repealed it -- under the auspices of protecting broadcasters' First Amendment rights.

Of course, those were the halcyon days when the US government strictly prohibited state-funded media, publishers owned or controlled by US intelligence agencies, and state propaganda, from being broadcast within the territorial United States and its territories. Nowadays...well, for some inconceivable reason I can't watch news on YouTube without being recommended VoA. And last I checked, that "state-funded media" disclaimer that's supposed to be there, for some inconceivable reason is not.

So, all I will say in the broader sense is this is very much a case of "be careful what you wish for" on both sides. Does regulation of social media need to happen? absolutely. Does social media need to be forced to choose between publisher and platform? absolutely. Do I trust the Trump administration to competently carry out necessary regulations? not in your life.

But hey, if folks are comfortable with AT&T, Comcast, Disney, National Amusements, and the FANG's declaring themselves sole arbiters of the truth when they are accountable to no one on this planet but shareholders, whatever floats your boat.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
This is a good video that summarizes Section 230 and why its actually super important.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
This is a good video that summarizes Section 230 and why its actually super important.
The problem is the intent and plain language of the relevant clause in Section 230 is that internet platforms are immunized from civil liability in cases of harmful or objectionable speech. This is content discrimination; viewpoint discrimination is entirely different form of discrimination, and CDA S.230's language leaves the issue of viewpoint discrimination entirely unanswered.

It's important here to set the negative connotation of the word "discrimination" aside, and consider only the word's denotation.

Let's use an example. Let's say a given thread here on the current events forum turns into a nice rip-roaring dumpster fire. Mods could lock the thread, ban further discussion about the topic on future posts, and/or censure or ban posters acting like donkeys on the thread(s). Any of those cases would be examples of content discrimination. But if mods started banning posters on the basis of expressed opinions, that's viewpoint discrimination.

Relevant to this discussion, the controversy is formed around three legal questions to be answered:

1) Are social media and search engine companies using recommendation, moderation, and content curation tools in a viewpoint-discriminatory way?
2) Does viewpoint discrimination run afoul of the plain language and legislative intent of CDA S.230?
3) If so, is viewpoint discrimination in content curation sufficient to revoke platform protections under CDA S. 230?

Editorial privilege and liability for (legally) harmful speech go hand-in-hand; publishers retain right to curate content on a viewpoint-discriminatory basis and to endorse viewpoints, and this means in turn they are to be held civilly liable when publishing harmful speech. Republicans' argument here is a logical extension of this: provision of immunity from liability means a concession of editorial privilege, and therefore the "right" to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in content curation. In other words, if a content provider opts to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, they ought to no longer be immune from liability.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
The problem is the intent and plain language of the relevant clause in Section 230 is that internet platforms are immunized from civil liability in cases of harmful or objectionable speech. This is content discrimination; viewpoint discrimination is entirely different form of discrimination, and CDA S.230's language leaves the issue of viewpoint discrimination entirely unanswered.
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue, but you might want to read this.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue...
And that's the issue. What French and Cato especially are dancing around in their labyrinthine, red herring-laden, "let me explain this to you (but am really editorializing, not explaining or even substantially engaging with counter-argumentation)" links you've shared, is that there are two distinct and wholly different forms of discrimination of speech that have been identified by the courts: content and viewpoint.

Content-based discrimination is discrimination on speech based upon its form or means of expression, regardless of the speech's substance. Restrictions such as time, place, and manner are permissible when content-neutral; in other words, how the speaker expresses themselves, not what the speaker expresses. Viewpoint-based discrimination is discrimination on speech based upon the speaker's expressed opinions, or even in some cases the speaker's identity or past/concurrent associations.

The argument is the plain text and legislative intent of Section 230(c)(2) is to provide immunity for content-based restriction of speech, and that content hosts and search engines have exceeded that authority and are engaging in viewpoint-based restriction.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
And that's the issue. What French and Cato especially are dancing around in their labyrinthine, red herring-laden, "let me explain this to you (but am really editorializing, not explaining or even substantially engaging with counter-argumentation)" links you've shared, is that there are two distinct and wholly different forms of discrimination of speech that have been identified by the courts: content and viewpoint.

Content-based discrimination is discrimination on speech based upon its form or means of expression, regardless of the speech's substance. Restrictions such as time, place, and manner are permissible when content-neutral; in other words, how the speaker expresses themselves, not what the speaker expresses. Viewpoint-based discrimination is discrimination on speech based upon the speaker's expressed opinions, or even in some cases the speaker's identity or past/concurrent associations.

The argument is the plain text and legislative intent of Section 230(c)(2) is to provide immunity for content-based restriction of speech, and that content hosts and search engines have exceeded that authority and are engaging in viewpoint-based restriction.
It really sounds like you are just trying to muddy the waters with nitpicking at this point.

Assuming you are acting in good faith, then lets say someone is advocating the "killing of immigrants to keep their country pure" vs someone making up lies about what other people said and both users were banned, would these be content or viewpoint based discrimination?
 

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
906
980
98
Country
Poland
So is Trump convinced the President, and he himself as a citizen, is entitled to a Twitter account? Like he has some legal backing here? What's to stop Twitter from just unverifying him, or just deleting the President's twitter account? You can't sue to have a social media account...
What stops them is Trump bringing lots of traffic to the site.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
It really sounds like you are just trying to muddy the waters with nitpicking at this point.
You do understand we're talking about legal language, legal questions, legal principles, and jurisprudence, right? This is nothing if not nitpicking, root to stem. That's the nature of the beast, when you're talking about questions of such nuance that using a comma instead of a semicolon might completely reverse the interpretation of a text.

Assuming you are acting in good faith, then lets say someone is advocating the "killing of immigrants to keep their country pure" vs someone making up lies about what other people said and both users were banned, would these be content or viewpoint based discrimination?
Ask a non-leading question. You're intentionally conflating advocacy of a crime, leaping directly to a particularly heinous crime and a straw man representation of conservatives' arguments, to in-fact commission of what would be considered for the purposes of your argument a tort (although torts aren't clear-cut and depend heavily upon the platform and status of the speaker and target). Compare like and like.

Let's say someone advocated killing immigrants, and another person advocated killing the rich. Both are banned; is that content or viewpoint based discrimination? If one is banned but the other not, is that content or viewpoint based discrimination?

Let's say someone selectively edited another's commentary to falsely paint them as a neo-Nazi, another selectively edited another's commentary to falsely paint them as a violent anarchist. Both are banned; is that content or viewpoint based discrimination? If one is banned but the other not, is that content or viewpoint based discrimination?
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
You do understand we're talking about legal language, legal questions, legal principles, and jurisprudence, right? This is nothing if not nitpicking, root to stem. That's the nature of the beast, when you're talking about questions of such nuance that using a comma instead of a semicolon might completely reverse the interpretation of a text.
Because you are taking something that has been around over 20 years and is pretty well understood and trying to say that its vague and difficult to define. If this was a new bill or something then you might have a point, but this is pretty much the legal foundation of how the internet works in the US. So to me it sounds like you are just trying to muddle well established waters.

Ask a non-leading question. You're intentionally conflating advocacy of a crime, leaping directly to a particularly heinous crime and a straw man representation of conservatives' arguments, to in-fact commission of what would be considered for the purposes of your argument a tort (although torts aren't clear-cut and depend heavily upon the platform and status of the speaker and target). Compare like and like.

Let's say someone advocated killing immigrants, and another person advocated killing the rich. Both are banned; is that content or viewpoint based discrimination? If one is banned but the other not, is that content or viewpoint based discrimination?

Let's say someone selectively edited another's commentary to falsely paint them as a neo-Nazi, another selectively edited another's commentary to falsely paint them as a violent anarchist. Both are banned; is that content or viewpoint based discrimination? If one is banned but the other not, is that content or viewpoint based discrimination?
Oh its a very leading question, but its also the most likely reason that conservatives get banned. I sincerely doubt anyone is banning them for just being conservative, they are probably being banned for harassment or advocating some pretty shit positions. And is it really a strawman if they are doing it? I mean lauren southern's actoins probably resulted in the deaths of at least a few immigrants, she was one of those assholes who was going around on ships and trying to intercept refugees ships and force them back, if I remember right they even harassed a refugee ship that was sinking. Alex jones wasn't banned for being conservative, he was banned from deliberately spreading misinformation and targeted harassment campaigns. The daily stormer wasn't removed from its hosting services for just being conservative, they were removed for celebrating Heyer's death after the unite the right rally and being generally shit.

I think it comes down to which side has more ability to actually perform the action, both views are shit, but one has much more likely hood of people going out and doing it, on top of people actually going out and doing it. That guy in 2019 who shot up the wallmart in El Paso wasn't targeting rich people, he was targeting hispanics and was a fan of that whole 'great replacement' and 'white genocide' bs.

I've seen people do that on this site, well the earlier version of this site, some people when they did a reply would change up the post they were replying to. I would say ban anyone deliberately doing that shit, its just trolling.
 

SupahEwok

Malapropic Homophone
Legacy
Jun 24, 2010
4,028
1,401
118
Country
Texas
I sincerely doubt anyone is banning them for just being conservative, they are probably being banned for... advocating some pretty shit positions.
You do realize that you're contradicting yourself? Those positions you consider "pretty shit" are conservative positions, and being banned for them is banning those people for a conservative viewpoint.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
What stops them is Trump bringing lots of traffic to the site.
Yes: although it's not just traffic who want to look at Trump's posts, it's the trust that Trump supporters have in Twitter. Trump thus poses Twitter a huge headache.

It reminds me of an indy game I played and its forums on the publisher website. There was a very active modder big in the community who was really helpful for doing technical stuff, but also routinely very inflammatory and abusive on the forums. I think the moderators gave him a huge amount of leeway, but eventually he went too far too many times and they banned him. Half the community started raging, and ended up quitting the forums with a lot of abuse directed at the publisher (which I suspect was not good for their business). What we learn from this is that people will support someone being a colossal prick as long as they're useful, and that authorities taking action against useful, colossal pricks can end up with a very unpleasant backlash.

This is the irony about claims that Twitter is censoring Trump: actually the opposite is true, that Twitter is extending Trump special privileges that the rest of the user base don't get, because he should long since have been shut down.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
Because you are taking something that has been around over 20 years and is pretty well understood and trying to say that its vague and difficult to define. If this was a new bill or something then you might have a point, but this is pretty much the legal foundation of how the internet works in the US. So to me it sounds like you are just trying to muddle well established waters.
If you believe pedigree actually matters when interpreting legal documents and court reasoning, especially in the face of grammar and punctuation, you might read Scalia's opinion in Heller. Remember as you do, Scalia was and still is the foremost positivist jurist in the US.

Oh its a very leading question, but its also the most likely reason that conservatives get banned.
Allegations are not merely limited to bans, suspensions, and content removal, and are not limited to those advocating for criminal action nor celebrating it, nor defamatory statements. Even in such cases where moderation on those topics can be demonstrated to be partisan in nature. They extend to search and recommendation algorithm manipulation, as well as demonetization and content obfuscation; not only along partisan lines, but on the basis of the speaker's identity and corporate affiliation, and the slipshod and oft-reckless ways in which these methods are employed by content hosts.

Who was harmed most by the 2017 "YouTube adpocalypse": conservative commentators, large corporate-owned channels, or smaller content creators (most notably LGBTQ and sex education channels)? Who was harmed most by the 2019 "Vox adpocalypse": conservative commentators, large corporate-owned channels, or documentary and educational channels?

Left-right partisanship is but one layer of the problem. In fact, by my analysis, left-right partisanship is but an excuse and cause celebre, exploited by both sides to obfuscate and manufacture consent for much more insidious motives: media consolidation, and anti-competitive practices on the part of major corporate and legacy media outlets. As I said initially, if you're comfortable with AT&T, Comcast, Disney, National Amusements, and the FANG's decreeing themselves sole arbiters of truth in our contemporary media landscape, be careful what you wish for.

This is the irony about claims that Twitter is censoring Trump: actually the opposite is true, that Twitter is extending Trump special privileges that the rest of the user base don't get, because he should long since have been shut down.
Exactly, it's the Twitch, YouTube, and Instagram problem: the rules don't apply to the content host's big money-makers.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
If you believe pedigree actually matters when interpreting legal documents and court reasoning, especially in the face of grammar and punctuation, you might read Scalia's opinion in Heller. Remember as you do, Scalia was and still is the foremost positivist jurist in the US.
Second amendment stuff is complicated enough that I'm not going to it since its already vague and lousy with interpretations.

Allegations are not merely limited to bans, suspensions, and content removal, and are not limited to those advocating for criminal action nor celebrating it, nor defamatory statements. Even in such cases where moderation on those topics can be demonstrated to be partisan in nature. They extend to search and recommendation algorithm manipulation, as well as demonetization and content obfuscation; not only along partisan lines, but on the basis of the speaker's identity and corporate affiliation, and the slipshod and oft-reckless ways in which these methods are employed by content hosts.
Then you need to actually show instances of that happening rather than just people complaining and making accusations. But, its moot anyway, section 230 says

(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer services shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

They can pretty much remove your content for any reason if they decide to go that route. They aren't required to host anyone else's content.

Who was harmed most by the 2017 "YouTube adpocalypse": conservative commentators, large corporate-owned channels, or smaller content creators (most notably LGBTQ and sex education channels)? Who was harmed most by the 2019 "Vox adpocalypse": conservative commentators, large corporate-owned channels, or documentary and educational channels?
Probably smaller lgbtq and sex education channels for both of those since conservative commentators have pretty powerful defenses outside of their most heinous positions. I remember hearing some where, although I tried looking this up before and couldn't find it so it might or might not be true, about some site, I think either twitter or facebook that was trying to use an algorithm to automatically block al-qaeda or some terrorist groups content posts, but it kept flagging republican/conservative content so they ended up just scrapping it.

Is this right or wrong? I don't know, but it seems weird to require a company, even one as big as google to be forced to host content they don't like. Would you be ok with a church/mega church website/forum being forced to host user content that was anti-religion?
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
Second amendment stuff is complicated enough that I'm not going to it since its already vague and lousy with interpretations.
So you well understand, regardless what positivists might say on the matter, pedigree has zero substantive meaning in interpretation of law. Why bring it up, then?

Then you need to actually show instances of that happening rather than just people complaining and making accusations.
You mean other than several Alphabet, Facebook, and Twitter employees (and former employees) going on-record this is exactly the behavior these companies engage in? You mean other than the leaked Google groups and chat transcripts that surfaced during the Damore controversy? Other than Sergey Brin's leaked all-hands video?

Taking into consideration this, and the "data" asserting the contrary all stem from internal reviews from the very same companies accused of misconduct (funny how Cato doesn't seem eager to point this out, how Facebook investigated Facebook and found Facebook innocent of wrongdoing) while simultaneously pushing back against third-party access to their internals for the sake of investigation, let alone stonewalling Congressional oversight, it is understatement to say FANG's behavior regarding their internal processes given their borderline monopolistic status in online content curation and provision, are exceptionally suspect.

Because this isn't merely a left-right issue. This is a "less than ten multinational corporations accountable only to shareholders control almost the entirety of media Americans consume, how they consume it, and to what they have access" issue.

But, its moot anyway, section 230 says...
...absolutely nothing about viewpoint-based discrimination as you just demonstrated yourself. Because the plain text of the statute immunizes content hosts from civil liability for content-based moderation. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
You do realize that you're contradicting yourself? Those positions you consider "pretty shit" are conservative positions, and being banned for them is banning those people for a conservative viewpoint.
Well, it's not the World's fault that conservatives decided to take shitty positions in the first place.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
You do understand we're talking about legal language, legal questions, legal principles, and jurisprudence, right? This is nothing if not nitpicking, root to stem. That's the nature of the beast, when you're talking about questions of such nuance that using a comma instead of a semicolon might completely reverse the interpretation of a text.
You still have to make a compelling argument.