Trump's Executive Order Against Social Media

That's not how laws work...the law outlines the requirments to get the protection...his argument and that of biden's as well, is that Facebook, Tweeter etc are no longer meeting that requirements and he has directed the FTC and FCC to examine if they are...if they aren't they either have to get in line with the law, or they aren't immune.

This really isn't rocket science...it's what the Executive Branch of Govt is suppose to be doing

 

Not that I think that either party gives a damn, putting the tweet behind a click wall is censorship. I don't believe in the devil or anything that comes from a politician.

 

I assume that you can now understand that it won't achieve anything.

 

And what would happen then?

 

President Trump would assume command of private communications.

 

Is there precedent of a President taking command of a private entity?

 

he will set precedent pending twitters insurrection.

 

But it hasn't happened before?

 

anything's possible with God.

 

You must have missed my refutation: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...st-social-media.573080/page-9#post-1071735046

 

Your “refutation” was unsupported therefore can be ignored.

 

No, you failed to show how Twitter was "pointing people in the direction of the facts!"

 

No they're not. The tweet that was the catalyst for this was an opinion. You can't really fact check an opinion.

What they're doing is there trying to promote a lie. It's propaganda

 

Because when you edit things sensor things whatever you want to call it, you are acting as a publisher. Twitter gets to have some legal immunities they're able to say they're not responsible for things people tweet on their platform. If there a publisher there not a platform.

I'm perfectly okay with them censoring the president. But if they don't censor everyone else for the things they say they should be liable for it.

They in a lot of these big tech companies have been skirting on the edge of legalities.

Think of it like AT&t. If people plan to commit a murder using AT&t services to communicate should AT&t be liable? I would say no because AT&t is a platform they're not responsible for what people use it for. Now if AT&t decided to start censoring calls and text messages and telling you you can't look at certain websites then yeah they would be responsible for allowing someone to plan a murder.

I think we just remove some of these immunities.

 

They don't publish the people who write tweets publish. If they published they would be liable.

 

Twitter DID point in the direction of the facts. Here is one of the things Twitter said:

“Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there." In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots.“

Are you saying it’s ok for trump to spread lies to the American people?

 

uh, fact checking the president can in no way be construed as insurrection by any sane or rational person. The president does not have any authority or power to take over a private company.

 

no you aren't. twitter, facebook, youtube, this very forum, all edit/censor posts. None of them are publishers.

 

They are free to delete post that violate TOS...they aren't free to add editorials about post. That makes them publishers.

Sorry....you are once again...wrong.

This website does not fact check post and make editorials about post.

 

it does not

not according to the law, or the constitution.

fact checking does not make you a publisher. There is nothing, at all, trump or anyone else in government can do about it.

 

According to what the word means it does.

Actually, very much according to the law and Constitution

"Fact checking" in the terms of publishing content about the post...in fact does...and thus outside of the protections provided by Congress to certain websites, and thus open to civil litigation. The President issued an EO to have the FTC and FCC look into if some of these large "social media" sites are in fact doing that....and if they are they might lose the protection fi they don't comply with the law.

 

it does not.

nope. the law and constitution clearly preclude trump or the government from taking any action against twitter.

fact checking does not make them a publisher. the presidents EO is unenforceable, as the constitution precludes him from doing anything to twitter for fact checking him. 230 protections specifically allow for twitter to fact check him. There is nothing they can do, other than repeal the 230 law entirely, or amend the constitution.

 

Weren't you agreeing that a private company cannot censor the Commander in Chief, as said by the member who I was replying to?

 

1) let me once again help you: Publisher: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/publisher
: one that publishes somethingespecially : a person or corporation whose business is publishing
Publishing: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/publishing
Definition of publishing


: the business or profession of the commercial production and issuance of literature, information, musical scores or sometimes recordings, or art

HOPE THAT HELPS...words actually have real meanings...not your made up ones

2) Please direct me to where in the Constitution or in law that the Twitter is immune from any action from the President or Govt...i'll wait....I have been for days now from you.

3) Fact chekcing doesn't...but when they editorialize....issue information about ones tweet...they then are a publisher and lose the protection afford to other websites under Section 230 Show me where in Section 230 it allows the tweeter to publish information about his post....I'll wait. They don't have to repeal the law...the law just doesn't apply to them as publishers....and there is nothing unenforceable about his EO directing the FTC and FCC to see if they are in complaince with the law

Once again...you continue to show how little you know about the topic being discussed. I had hoped you took time to read the EO and the law...but apparently you haven't....that or maybe you have and continue to not understand

 

and twitter does not fall into that, as they are not a publisher. fact checking a statement, or removing members from posting is not publishing. sorry.

You were answered the first time you asked. 1st amendment.

fact checking is not publishing. trumps EO is unenforceable as it violates the first amendment. There is nothing he or anyone else in government can do to twitter. 230 specifically gives them the ability to fact check him.

I've repeatedly pointed out constitutional law to you. Your understanding of it is not my problem. I will continue refuting the bullshit you post when I see it, as I always do.