5 ms·

Sidewalks are not content providers, don't come with legal terms and conditions, and not legally protected by Section 230. That's a reductionist argument and co

Sidewalks are not content providers, don't come with legal terms and conditions, and not legally protected by Section 230. That's a reductionist argument and completely absurd to consider a sidewalk a website. You're analogy is flawed, a sidewalk is more akin to the network infrastructure of the internet, but a website is your analogy is more like a house. And you can kick anyone out of your house you want to because you own that property. Furthermore, government dictated moderation is de facto censorship, not the other way around.

okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
that still doesn't speak against the concepts in the supreme court ruling. Someone tried to apply their own terms and conditions to their property. They couldn't because they had made it into a public space with public expectations.
- stillbourne 5y ago
  Link the case please.
  - okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
    I... already did? but here it is again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
    - stillbourne 5y ago
      The closest thing I could find is: Cyber Promotions v. America Online https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/9 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/9... The argument was based on the Marsh v Alabama ruling but the justices did not agree. That's why we're allowed to have spam filters. Are you pro or anti spam filter, because by your definition of the law, spam filters are illegal.
      - okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
        edit: actually nevermind, I'm not going to take a full degree in drafting legislature just to argue that citizen rights be respected in more places, you are silly and you know you are silly Marsh would sooner apply to social media than to email, it does not magically have to apply to both or neither.
        stillbourne 5y ago
        I'm the one being silly? There is not a single affirmative ruling in your favor that's related to technology, all you have is something about sidewalks in a company town.

okdjnfweonfe 5y ago

that still doesn't speak against the concepts in the supreme court ruling. Someone tried to apply their own terms and conditions to their property. They couldn't because they had made it into a public space with public expectations.

stillbourne 5y ago
Link the case please.
- okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
  I... already did? but here it is again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
  - stillbourne 5y ago
    The closest thing I could find is: Cyber Promotions v. America Online https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/9 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/9... The argument was based on the Marsh v Alabama ruling but the justices did not agree. That's why we're allowed to have spam filters. Are you pro or anti spam filter, because by your definition of the law, spam filters are illegal.
    - okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
      edit: actually nevermind, I'm not going to take a full degree in drafting legislature just to argue that citizen rights be respected in more places, you are silly and you know you are silly Marsh would sooner apply to social media than to email, it does not magically have to apply to both or neither.
      - stillbourne 5y ago
        I'm the one being silly? There is not a single affirmative ruling in your favor that's related to technology, all you have is something about sidewalks in a company town.