4 ms·
> after all, it anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get Not when that someone is the government or its representative. Th
by koolba 3y ago
> after all, it anyone can feel comfortable demanding anything, what matters is what they get
Not when that someone is the government or its representative. The act of asking can itself be a violation of your rights as there’s an implication that if you do not comply their may be some unknown ramifications.
Judges are savvy enough to know that threats need not be verbalized to be received.
- hooande 3y agowhat was the implied threat?
- Clubber 3y agoRepeal of section 230. Remember when they brought all the CEOs to testify in front of congress?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago"they" didn't. a GOP-controlled congress did, and that party remains the most opposed to section 230
- Clubber 3y agoDemocrats have threatened it as well: "Democrats Want To Hold Social Media Companies Responsible For Health Misinformation" Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the Health Misinformation Act targets a provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from being held liable for what their users post in most cases. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-hold-social-media-companies-responsible-for-health-misinformat https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019346177/democrats-want-to-... It's obvious government infringement on free speech from both sides when you take off your red or blue colored glasses.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoRepublicans have threatened it as well: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/5020/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/502... S.5020 - A bill to repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Sponsor: Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] you're now free to respond to the substance of the post you replied to: it was, in fact, a GOP controlled Senate which performed the action in question
- stale2002 3y agoOk, so then we can agree that the gov definitely is engaging in illegal violations of first amendment rights! Looks like you agree with the judge here from the article.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoLooks like you've still failed to articulate the credible implied threat Facebook felt from the Biden administration's requests, or how that ties in with the GOP-controlled senate bringing the CEOs before them: did they do that because the Biden administration ordered them to, as a result of Facebook ignoring one of the requests? It's a laughably bipartisan conspiracy theory, and thus nobody would actually feel threatened by it.
- Clubber 3y agoIt's been articulated, you just choose to ignore it.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoah yes, that classic proof, "I already proved it!" [with no citations, while entirely failing to respond to any clarifying questions] can be applied in all cases!
- 3y ago