Google/Youtube shut down the Project Veritas video exposing Google's attempt to squash Conservative Free Speech.
Twitter is shutting down the new Conservative Free Speech forum, Parler.
When Jordan Peterson's gay-assed Conservative speech forum is created, it will do no good. It will be shut down too, OR, it will be a Ghetto for Conservatives.
You don't invent your way our of a War by coming up with nifty ideas while people are gunning for you.
YOU KILL THEM!
From Ace of Spades:
Only a speaker or publisher of claimed defamatory content can be sued.
Not being a speaker or publisher of a defamatory statement gives you total immunity from suit. You're just a guy, you had nothing to do with the tort alleged.
Section 230 specifically says that "neutral content platforms" shall not be deemed to be the "speaker or publisher" of a claimed defamatory statement made by a third party using their service -- hence, the complete immunity from suit. You can't be sued for something someone else said, obviously.
Now newspapers can be sued for the defamatory remarks of, say, an interview subject. They are publishers of that defamatory statement -- they chose to publish it. The interview subject made the statement, but then they chose to publish it themselves, becoming another "speaker" of the defamation.
Now, "neutral content platforms" are never considered "speakers" of third-party defamations (or any third-party crime involving speech, such as offering to sell contraband or conspiring to commit a crime). But a newspaper or media company --or this blog -- could be.
The corporate cucks claim that you cannot put restrictions on Google, Facebook, or Twitter as regards their right to censor opinions they disagree with because that constitutes "compelled speech." You're compellingthem to speak things they do not believe, the cucks' argument goes.
But... section 230 states that, as a legal matter, they are not considered the "speakers" of any statement made on their "neutral content platforms."
So which is it? Are they the speakers of these words -- in which case, like a newspaper or tv station, they'd have every right to exercise editorial judgment and decide what they wish their company to say -- or are they not the speakers of these words, which is their claim whenever someone tries to sue them?
As it stands, they are speakers when it comes to their power to block people from speaking on their platforms -- and thus can indulge in the vice of censorship -- but not speakers when it comes to people suing them for what other people said on their platforms.
Choose one or the other: Either you are a speaker of other people's words or you're not. You can't forever choose one and then the other when it's in your interest to have the Clown Nose On or the Clown Nose Off.
Also, note that these platforms are quick to ban groups like the Proud Boys even though the Proud Boys aren't hate groups routinely engaged in violence, and yet rarely ban Antifa groups, which are hate groups that routinely use these platforms to target people for violence, and to coordinate violence.
Why should Google and FaceBook and Twitter have the cover of section 230 when it's quite clear they are affirmatively bending their own rules to allow violent domestic terrorist groups to plot and scheme using their platform? They've demonstrated both the capability and desire to ban political groups for far less than what Antifa does; if they're permitting antifa to remain, why should they not be parties to a lawsuit that targets antifa for its violence? They have chosen to continue offering their services to known law-breakers, for purposes of law-breaking.
Having put in place a draconian and expensive system for banning some speakers -- can any of these companies say "We just don't have the money or staff to ban criminal speech"?
If you have the time and personnel to ban Crowder, you have the time and personnel to ban Antifa. And if you choose not to -- then you are liable for their crimes.
If Google and Facebook and Twitter want to ban Crowder or Carl Benjamin, they say "We're speakers, to deny our right to censor is to force us to utter speech we disagree with!"
But try to sue them for knowingly and willfully acting as a plotting tool for antifa, and they say, "But we're not speakers! We can't be sued for others' speech?"Here's the algorithm:
If someone is complaining of your censorship:
1) Claim that you are effectively the speaker of statements made on your site, and say you have First Amendment right to not be compelled to be the speaker of things you disagree with.
But if someone sues because you did not delete and ban conspirators, contraband-sellers, and defamers:
2) Claim that you are legally not the speaker of those statements, thanks to the Community Decency Act, section 230.
So a publisher has the right to not print people's speech if they don't like it, or find it objectionable, but they also have the responsibility of checking to see if all statements published by them are legal and true, and may face legal suit (or possibly even criminal prosecution) if they're not.
But when it comes to Tech Monopoly Publishers -- they have the right to censor, but none of the responsibility to patrol for legality and accuracy, on pain of legal consequence, that publishers do.Meanwhile, while acting like publishers in all relevant ways.
Does anyone see the problem here? Or are a lot of Cuckservatives and Ruling Caste Republicans just paid a lot of money by corporations not to see the problem?
This is just one of the incongruities that arises when a company is permitted to claim one status -- "We're speakers and you can't compel us to permit speech we disagree with!" -- for one set of circumstances but invoke an entirely contradictory status -- "We're not speakers at all!" -- for others.
It's time to resolve this.
These companies are in fact media companies -- the largest and most profitable in the world. Google makes NBC look like a corner shop.
And if they themselves are going to willingly, knowingly abandon their positions as "non-speakers" -- as bona fide neutral content platforms -- then they should join the rest of the media in being potential liable for defamation or conspiracies to commit violence that they permit their platforms to be used for.
No comments:
Post a Comment