3 ms·

Your characterization of Section 230 is the opposite of what it does. From the Wikipedia article [1] on Section 230: > Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good

by jffry 4y ago

Your characterization of Section 230 is the opposite of what it does. From the Wikipedia article [1] on Section 230: > Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

starkd 4y ago
"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harrassing, or otherwise objectionable" Nonething in that description pertains to someone's opinion. First amendment allows you to hold nazi beliefs in principle, no matter how someone might perceive them as offensive.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 4y ago
  >> "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harrassing, or otherwise objectionable" > Nonething in that description pertains to someone's opinion. Literally all of those items are subjective and a matter of opinion. >First amendment allows you to hold nazi beliefs in principle, no matter how someone might perceive them as offensive. The First Amendment prevents Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech. Social media platforms and private citizens are not Congress, so they are perfectly within their legal rights to tell Nazis to get the hell off their lawn.
  - starkd 4y ago
    Not when they collaborate with the government to censor opinions, which has been happening. Furthermore, there have been several court opinions in the past that have been sympathetic to the "town square" argument of a platform. Restrictions to the first amendment have traditionally been on the basis of a narrow set of immediate threats. They are not thought crimes.
    - sophacles 4y ago
      > collaborate with the government to censor opinions, which has been happening Citation needed.

by jffry 4y ago

starkd 4y ago

"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harrassing, or otherwise objectionable" Nonething in that description pertains to someone's opinion. First amendment allows you to hold nazi beliefs in principle, no matter how someone might perceive them as offensive.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
krapp 4y ago
>> "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harrassing, or otherwise objectionable" > Nonething in that description pertains to someone's opinion. Literally all of those items are subjective and a matter of opinion. >First amendment allows you to hold nazi beliefs in principle, no matter how someone might perceive them as offensive. The First Amendment prevents Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech. Social media platforms and private citizens are not Congress, so they are perfectly within their legal rights to tell Nazis to get the hell off their lawn.
- starkd 4y ago
  Not when they collaborate with the government to censor opinions, which has been happening. Furthermore, there have been several court opinions in the past that have been sympathetic to the "town square" argument of a platform. Restrictions to the first amendment have traditionally been on the basis of a narrow set of immediate threats. They are not thought crimes.
  - sophacles 4y ago
    > collaborate with the government to censor opinions, which has been happening Citation needed.