Democratic Bill Would Suspend Section 230 Protections When Social Networks Boost Anti-vax Conspiracies (techcrunch.com) 282
Two Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would strip away the liability shield that social media platforms hold dear when those companies are found to have boosted anti-vaccine conspiracies and other kinds of health misinformation. From a report: The Health Misinformation Act, introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), would create a new carve-out in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to hold platforms liable for algorithmically-promoted health misinformation and conspiracies. Platforms rely on Section 230 to protect them from legal liability for the vast amount of user-created content they host.
"For far too long, online platforms have not done enough to protect the health of Americans," Klobuchar said. "These are some of the biggest, richest companies in the world and they must do more to prevent the spread of deadly vaccine misinformation." The bill would specifically alter Section 230's language to revoke liability protections in the case of "health misinformation that is created or developed through the interactive computer service" if that misinformation is amplified through an algorithm. The proposed exception would only kick in during a declared national public health crisis, like the advent of Covid-19, and wouldn't apply in normal times.
"For far too long, online platforms have not done enough to protect the health of Americans," Klobuchar said. "These are some of the biggest, richest companies in the world and they must do more to prevent the spread of deadly vaccine misinformation." The bill would specifically alter Section 230's language to revoke liability protections in the case of "health misinformation that is created or developed through the interactive computer service" if that misinformation is amplified through an algorithm. The proposed exception would only kick in during a declared national public health crisis, like the advent of Covid-19, and wouldn't apply in normal times.
Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a problem with one of the vaccines, you need to be able to tell people about it.
Freedom of speech means that you can stop the form of speech (like no yelling out in the middle of the night, people want to sleep), but you can't stop a particular idea from being shared.
These people want to stop an idea from being shared. If an idea is false, then the solution is to answer it with more speech, not with censorship. In this case the authorities are right, but if you give them the power to censor, they will abuse that power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or homeopathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Freedom of Speech (Score:2)
However, the Director of HHS is the person who defines what it means
Where does it say that? The bill merely says that the government will issue "guidance." A court could go beyond that or ignore it pretty freely.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say that? The bill merely says that the government will issue "guidance."
What?
That's not a thing.
No bill says "the government" will issue guidance. It makes no fucking sense.
Next time read the damn thing before lying.
It's available on scribd. The section you want is boldly labeled "GUIDANCE"
Re: Freedom of Speech (Score:3)
I did read it, I'm just paraphrasing. The key issue isn't who, though a political appointee is a bad choice, but what.
GUIDANCE.â"Not later than 30 days after the of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies and outside experts determined appropriate by the Secretary, shall issue guidance regarding what constitutes health misinformation....
So it's guidance, which isn't binding, and thus could be both over inclusive and under inclusive, as well as, of course, subject to political whims. What happens if the Secretary's guidance is that any post that doesn't toe the party line that it'll all blow over by April, or that bleach ingestion is a good idea, is health misinformation? Hopefully courts ignore the guidance but some might n
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is damn broad.
However, the Director of HHS is the person who defines what it means (meaning it changes with administrations, or if the President doesn't like it), and only during a declared public health crisis.
This isn't an unprecedented law.
I'm not arguing against your fears of it. I'm merely giving you the context by which maybe you can bound that fear.
Yes, it will have a chilling effect on free speech.
There is Supreme Court precedence to allow it, though.
Re: (Score:2)
What I imagine this means, is if some person who is converted to anti-vax accidentally gets sick and kills his whole fucking family, he can then sue the platform for spreading that drivel.
And doesn't that sound absolutely insane? That because some idiot read something, gets sick and thinks anyone else is to blame but themselves is some how now legally allowed to sue? Give me a break.
At this point, if you don't get a covid vaccine, that's on you.
Re: Freedom of Speech (Score:3)
Obesity is the biggest public health crisis of our time, already formally recognised as such in for instance Mexico.
If that happens in the US this law could in theory become quite wide reaching. That said, SJWs will make sure it never happens for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
I said nothing about abuse. If obesity is recognized as a public health crisis, it will simply make the impact of the law much larger. Abuse or no.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. What happens when another Snowden-type reveal shows that a "conspiracy" was actually right all along!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I will concede that they are in fact chilling free speech.
The law removes an immunity granted to online platforms for online platforms that spread scientifically false medically important data, specifically during a national medical emergency.
There have been many laws like this over time (specifically wartime laws)
Whether right or wrong, I don't think it's quite as dire as you're afraid of.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just another step in killing "the people's" ability to communicate in public. Facebook and twitter are essentially the public square at this point. If you let these platforms get sued into oblivion, they will quickly ban posting before they die.
Worse though, facebook and twitter have lots of money and can hang on for a lot longer. All the little site's will be dead after the first lawsuit. That or those sites will just stop allowing user-generated content. Say good bye to public forums of any kind.
Exac
Re: (Score:2)
I've always been for S.230. The case that preceded, and instigated its creation was a perfect example of why it needed to exist.
I'm merely saying, there is precedent for this kind of thing happening, and the rules in place, established by the Supreme Court are very tailored against allowing things like censorship.
In general, the government is allowed to do all kinds of things in a crisis, particularly if what they're doing is reasonably requir
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These people want to stop an idea from being shared. If an idea is false, then the solution is to answer it with more speech, not with censorship. In this case the authorities are right, but if you give them the power to censor, they will abuse that power.
So what's the happy balance? On the one hand, we want to preserve the freedom of speech: a person who wants to talk about the earth being flat should be able to do so, regardless of how wrong they are. On the other hand, we want to preserve the freedom of association: a wholesome and encouraging online community for kids who love Legos should be able to block indecent or inappropriate content that they don't want. Both rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment and both must be considered when you write l
Re: (Score:3)
No one should be able to sue Facebook because I made an account and started spouting bullshit. At most, the offended party should probably file a civil suit against me, the person that made the account to spout bullshit. Facebook should be compelled to give up whatever information it has on me if ordered by a judge.
That's about the end of it right there. Facebook owns the platform and if they want to ban stuff, that's up to them. They pay the bills. If they don't want to ban anything, that's fine as well. F
Freedumb of Speech (Score:2)
Does that include, "Aunt Martha said it made her right tit hurt, her friend had the same problem, skip the vax!"?
If you quote doctor-unverified anecdotal evidence or cherry-pick medical opinions, you should be required to state so. Fox & Infowars finds nutty outlier doctors and doesn't mention that they are outliers. That shouldn't be allowed. A "news" organization, or what acting like news, should at least take
Re: (Score:2)
Does that include, "Aunt Martha said it made her right tit hurt, her friend had the same problem, skip the vax!"?
Yes. There are alternatives to censorship. People who knee-jerk immediately to the solution of censorship are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
all it says is you can be sued and are no longer protected if you allow health misinformation on your platform.
If the "misinformation" is in fact actual information not proven to be false then they still can't be sued.
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Informative)
Sure you can. Try sharing the word "fire" in a crowded movie theater w/o there being a fire -- or "movie" in a crowded firehouse ...
This example is a shibboleth. Anyone who uses the "fire in a crowded movie theater" doesn't know much about free speech. That means you. Learn something about the law, that case was overturned nearly half a century ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, I read the Wikipedia article (and a few others) and you're not quite entirely accurate.
At this point, you might as well say you are ignorant on the topic.
Come up with a new example.
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, I read the Wikipedia article (and a few others) and you're not quite entirely accurate.
At this point, you might as well say you are ignorant on the topic.
Come up with a new example.
What I posted wasn't from Wikipedia and your reply leads me to believe you don't really have a thoughtful reply. In any case, I'll give you a TL;DR here:
The First Amendment isn't a get out of jail free card for everything that comes out of one's mouth. There are limits on free speech, like libel and slander and (as noted earlier) yelling "bomb" in an airport. In some (many?) cases yelling "fire" in a theater is protected speech, but it's probably not in all cases and there will be consequences. That said
Laws are hollow bullshit now. (Score:2)
"The proposed exception would only kick in during a declared national public health crisis, like the advent of Covid-19, and wouldn't apply in normal times.
Well, since the elitists are getting very rich off maintaining this particular version of "normal" in the world, you might as well throw this new legislation in the garbage where it belongs, since the first thing professional amplifiers are going to do is lobby to define a new state of "normal" to ensure this never kicks in.
This can be used to suppress pro-gun speech (Score:2)
The proposed exception would only kick in during a declared national public health crisis, like the advent of Covid-19, and wouldn't apply in normal times.
From the White House: [whitehouse.gov]
But I also — today, we’re taking steps to confront not just the gun crisis, but what is actually a public health crisis.
Not a good plan (Score:5, Informative)
First, it actually swings too far the other way. 47 USC 230 was meant to avoid the situation where an Internet service was treated as the publisher of information a user posted, rendering it liable for defamation and other offenses. The impetus comes from a pair of cases in the early 90s: one held that where a provider did not review or moderate users' posts, the provider was not a publisher, but merely a distributor, and the other held that if it reviewed or moderated user posts in the least bit, the site was a publisher and liable for anything it should have moderated but didn't. For example, if you moderate to remove porn, offensive language, malware, spam, etc., you're also liable if a user defames someone and you fail to do anything about it despite that you have no way of knowing whether it is defamatory unless you review and fact check literally every post for every possible thing, before it can go live, and never make the error of a false negative.
This was clearly a bad system so we got a statutory policy that allows and encourages moderation on whatever grounds a service prefers (you could remove fucking spam but not offensive fucking language for example) without adding liability for taking things down or leaving them up. Sites haven't done a great job of policing themselves, but at least it's better than either of the three extremes you get otherwise -- wall to wall crap like what happened to Usenet, turning the Internet into cable tv in which users cannot post, or just not offering any services because it's a pain in the ass.
This law doesn't simply go back to the default condition (which has the potential, as it is common law, to evolve) but instead affirmatively imposes liability on sites with regard to "health misinformation." So even failing to moderate doesn't save a site; moderation is absolutely mandatory under this law, even if only for this one thing.
Next, there is no definition of what "health misinformation" is. The government is directed to provide 'guidance' but it's easy for someone to claim that some post was misinformative despite compliance with the guidance.
Further, this is impossible to accomplish. It means every post must be checked, manually, for any possible "health misinformation" before it goes live, and that any post inadvertently made live exposes a site to liability. Even if the moderator made the right call, the potential litigation for frivolous suits is enough to destroy virtually any site around.
This is not a sensible bill. This is someone trying to destroy the ability of people to post things online.
I sympathize with the intent of this... (Score:2)
For such legislation to be anything other than a partisan swipe, it would have to be written to cover all lies about generally accepted scientific facts. How big a Bureau Of Bullshit would it take to monitor all of social media for violations? Get ready for endless tribal bickering over the precise wording of everyone's tweets and Facebook ruminations. It would turn into a jobs program for people who owe huge student loans for critical theory degrees.
And predictably it came from two of the blue dogs (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet lives and dies by two things. Net neutrality and section 230. Anyone who tells you different is trying to destroy the internet or has been fooled by someone who is trying to destroy the internet. The C-levels don't like that we can just talk amongst ourselves and they're moving to take over. If they had understood what the internet was back in the 90s they never would have let us have it
Woke Dictionary (Score:2, Insightful)
"Misinformation", n. Information I disagree with.
"Disinformation", n. Information I disagree with that also contradicts what I'm trying to say.
So we are banning advertising of bad food next? (Score:2)
Sounds great! Crack down on those social media companies for the misinformation and anti-vax in general. Next, since the government cares so much about my health and how companies in general are some how responsible for my health, I purpose we ban all advertisements of alcohol, fast food, soda pop and really any food that is processed.
Surely that would be the socially responsible thing to do, since we care so much about society's health and all. Also, why are cigarettes banned yet? They literally cause canc
Define "boost" (Score:2)
A few lawsuits from families of dead would be nice (Score:3)
When the news suggests vaccines are unsafe based on no evidence and your family member listens to that advice and dies, that should be an open and shut wrongful death suit as surely as that girl who convinced her boyfriend to commit suicide for laughs. This is no different, its a bad actor convincing someone else to hurt themselves for their benefit. That girl was found guilty, so should everyone else peddling garbage as truth.
I don't understand (Score:2)
Being an idiot anti vaxer isn't against the law and shouldn't ever be
Misinformation (Score:3)
I am no anti-vaxxer but you never want the government deciding what is misinformation and what isn't. You may be cool with it now, but if (actually "when," not if) the government shifts they may not like what you say.
Re: Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know the Republicans are trying to do the exact same thing? Eliminate Section 230 and compel speech, in violation of the 1st Amendment. Trump rails against it all the time. Same shit will be struck down by the courts.
Re: Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know the Republicans are trying to do the exact same thing?
Tu quoque doesn't work here, because the Democrats and Republicans are not in a symmetrical situation.
The sine qua non of Republicanism is that government doesn't work. So they can throw a monkey wrench into the system, and when it fails, say, "See, we told you that government doesn't work!"
The Democrats can't do that. They have no choice but to act like adults.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, because they're actually governing they have to act like adults?
Where have you been those 4 years before the current administration?
Re: Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, because they're actually governing they have to act like adults?
No, because they believe that government should be an active instrument of social policy. If that is your position, and you want people to vote for you, you have to make the system work.
Where have you been those 4 years before the current administration?
Do you mean the four years of dysfunction that validated the Republican claim that government doesn't work?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is also pretty hypocritical since Republicans openly admit their voter "fraud" laws are intended to disproportionately impact Democrats, and they need them to win.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is also pretty hypocritical
Sure. But hypocrisy doesn't matter when the Republicans do it.
Democrats: "You can trust politicians to manage your life for you. We are honest."
Republicans: "No you can't. We are all a bunch of liars and crooks."
Re: (Score:3)
What, no. Republicans also want the government to be an active regulator of social policy.
Could you point out one actual current Republican policy? The only policy they seem to have is to oppose anything the Democrats propose. McConnell even admitted that all he is going to do is make sure that the Democrats don't pass any policy legislation. Maybe if the Republicans proposed a healthcare reform policy (other than destroying the ACA) it could be said that they "want the government to be an active regulator of social policy" but currently I would say they have no such intention.
Re: Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:2)
The Democrats can't do that. They have no choice but to act like adults.
Don't tell us; tell them - they sure as fuck didn't get the memo.
Re: Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:4, Insightful)
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke
Re: Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:4, Interesting)
Complete bullshit. When I joined slahsdot I lived in a beautiful country with a nice constitution, justice and good education. Then stupid people like the left Populist Democrats lied, started buying votes, they had already started in the 50s, but from 2000 on they just destroyed the country so much, that after a trip abroad I stayed 8 more years in another beautiful country. This is a country that has so much beauty, ethnic diversity, lush landscapes, richness of people and land that I feel in love. A few years later, populists and narco power took over, violence, degradation, and sheer corruption made the country implode. It's handing by a threat and they aspire to be like Venezuela. When in my natal country, I had a business partner, we run some business together. When our country nosedived due to populists, he went to Venezuela, and did great, married and had children. He had to feel that country, extremely violent, nothing works, everything is corrupt, a complete disaster.
And now, I in the use for many many years, I recognize the left moves as the same arguments and playbooks, adapted to destroy American institutions.
>The Democrats can't do that. They have no choice but to act like adults.
No, they destroy everything they touch. And they never, ever build anything useful. Crime, high taxes, racism, activism instead of sciences, freebies, buy votes with money. It is a complete disgrace but unlike my other pilgrimages, this is the last stop. There's nowhere else to go. There's no place that respects the individual. And politicians and people in high power, when in control, will destroy anything and anyone they don't like.
America didn't prosper prosper due to lack of Communism alternatives to live in, but in spite of it. Instead of trying to convert USA into Cuba or Venezuela, why don't we convert America into...America?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but whoever implements it will get the blame.
It's a little bit different (Score:5, Insightful)
The Dems, being dumb as a blade of grass and more than a little corrupt in their own rights, want to reform S230 so that dangerous lies can be censored and (here's the corrupt part) because their donors would like to kill Section 230 so they seize control of the Internet. FB & Twitter will be able to comply with these laws or pay the fines when they don't. Anyone wanting to compete with them will not.
And yes, there's a few numbskulls on the left who want to kill S230 because they see people getting sick from anti-vaxx lies. I get that. One of my best friends of over 30 years is anti-vaxx and I'm terrified he's going to get sick and die and there's not a damn thing I can do about it (I tried, so did our other, more sensible friends). But these lefties are fools. Just like with Citizens United (which was brought by Unions) they'll be outmaneuvered and taken advantage of.
For fuck's sake leave S230 alone. It's a pillar of the Internet and without it the Internet dies.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, social networks do police their content, so they don't fall into the common carrier definition.
It would be simpler to go with the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see any mentions of exceptions when it comes to misinformation. The words "except for" don't appear at all.
No, misinformation is not good for society. However, giving the government power to stop it will be far worse in the long run.
Re:Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:4, Insightful)
The first amendment does not protect lies that cause damage. Never has. And let's be frank, the Republicans don't give two shits about the 1st. Donald Trump had the DOJ investigate reporters. He tried to have critics jailed.
Re:Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:5, Insightful)
Such a law would be a content-based disfavoring of protected speech, and therefore unconstitutional.
Re:Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:5, Informative)
Jurisprudence currently holds false statements of fact as unprotected speech.
Incitement to suicide is also unprotected, which while not directly analogous, the reasoning in the ruling could definitely be expanded to "encouraging people to themselves at a scientifically quantifiable risk that threatens the medical system as a whole"
Not saying I agree or disagree with either, but it's nowhere near as clear as you claim.
Re: (Score:3)
1) There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and
2) The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.
And that is just general strict scrutiny, when applied to speech the restrictions must be as narrow as possible while achieving the aim. (I am too busy to find a better page.) https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_... [findlaw.com]
Also, many lies are protected, especially against State interests (but yes you can still sue someone
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Best recent one would be United States v. O'Brien.
Re: (Score:2)
In conclusion, we find that because of the Government's substantial interest in assuring the continuing availability of issued Selective Service certificates, because amended 462 (b) is an appropriately narrow means of protecting this interest and condemns only the independent noncommunicative impact of conduct within its reach, and because the noncommunicative impact of O'Brien's act of burning his registration certificate frustrated the Government's interest, a sufficient governmental interest has been shown to justify O'Brien's conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw your emphasis on noncommunicative, but I think you're reading too much into it.
The proposed exception to S.230 is appropriately narrow, and even relatively benign (it offers no criminal repercussions), means of protecting the interest of the Government.
The O'Brien Test follows:
The law in question must:
1) be within the Constitutional power of the government to enact.
2) further an important or substantial government interest.
a) That interest must be unr
Re:Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:5, Informative)
Jurisprudence currently holds false statements of fact as unprotected speech.
Not categorically so. False statements of fact may or may not be protected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent. Absent from these few categories is any general exception for false statements.
The proposed law would apply to "misinformation," which covers a whole lot more than fraud. It would therefore be unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a massive difference between consequences for your speech and consequences for the consequences of your speech.
May look the same at first glance, but one of em demands a 1984 esque state where every speech is monitored and people are punished for any words regardless of the context, and the other, the one the US has is the one where you get to respond for the damage caused by your speech.
Re: (Score:2)
And how does that apply to section 230, which provides immunity to online publishers for speech made by others?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not directly related but it's a quite similar issue.
If you demand that there are direct consequences for "illegal speech", the websites will have to implement the literally impossible task to check every post for "illegal speech" and remove the users from the platform.
Now if you demand that there are consequences for the consequences of the speech of the users, then it's just a matter of cooperating with the authorities for the specific cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Why again is religion legal, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, the first also covers freedom of religion specifically. But you knew that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
What now, protect religion or don't protect lies that cause damage, you can't have both.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment does not protect lies that cause damage.
Actually, it does. The exceptions being if the lies are about the character or actions of a specific individual (libel/slander) or the lies are perpetrated for the purposes of financial gain to the detriment of others (fraud).
Re: (Score:2)
Are you asserting that the only exceptions to the 1st are libel and slander? That's false.
Re:Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:5, Informative)
The first amendment does not protect lies that cause damage.
Yes it does: Brandenburg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org].
Unless the damaging speech is inflammatory and likely to cause imminent lawless action, it is protected speech.
Speech that is merely false and "damaging" cannot be legally suppressed, although you might be able to retroactively sue for civil damages.
Americans are often shocked to discover just how strongly the Constitution protects their rights. If the Constitution was put up for a popular referendum, it would almost certainly be rejected.
Re: (Score:3)
Leaving aside your constant misinterpretation of Brandenburg, how does that apply to section 230, which is what is being discussed here? This isn't even about government censorship. It is about the rights of online publishers.
Re:Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, can't wait for all the democrat's posts to just disappear from social media when they spread misinformation about voter IDs and their conspiracy about it being designed to hurt minorities. Bye-Bye Critical Race Theory as well. It'll be great.
Oh wait, the bill is only for Covid conspiracies. These other conspiracies are allowed. See how that works?
Re:Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:4, Interesting)
In that case the government can shut down and deplatform those who assert that socialism is a viable and sustainable system. Because by every measure - logic, experience, numerous examples - it leads to misery.
The damage caused by socialism and communism means that they are equivalent to anti-vax propaganda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they aren't telling the truth, they are lying. Doesn't matter if they believe it.
Re: Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:3)
That's not true. The definition of lie is an intentionally false statement. If you believe what you are saying is true then it is accidentally false, not intentionally false.
So now tell me...when you said that if you aren't telling the truth you are lying, were you lying or did you just make a mistake by not considering all possible scenarios?
Re: (Score:3)
No, see those are also different versions of lies, but still all intentional. Overt lie...you know what you are saying is wrong and just plain don't make any effort to conceal it. A covert lie is made hard to detect (perhaps you say it in a context where you hope someone will misinterpret it as something else more favorable than the truth) but you are still flat out lying. For a lie of omission, you are saying only factually true things, but you are intentionally leaving out some important context.
For a cov
Re: (Score:3)
The antivaxxers may well believe most of what they're saying, but they prevaricate when challenged because they know that they're adding lies in order to promote what they believe. However, that's by the by. No part of the carrier of a message should be at risk because of the message. The person falsely spreading a message is a different matter.
However, American law rarely works because it is vengeance-based. In order to succeed, law must be rehabilitation-based. But if you take away the lust for blood and
Re: Kiss the 1st goodbye (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If the democrats killed the filibuster and passed all their dreams, hopes and wishes, they would drive the country over a cliff and we would quickly cascade into another civil war.
I'm sure our enemies would love to watch that dumpster fire.
Re:1rst Ammendment Isn't All Encompassing (Score:4, Informative)
You can absolutely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can then be arrested for _inciting a panic_ that _causes harm and damage_ or perhaps for _disturbing the peace_ - but not for yelling "fire".
Even the justice who came up with that phrase disavowed it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can absolutely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can then be arrested for _inciting a panic_ that _causes harm and damage_ or perhaps for _disturbing the peace_ - but not for yelling "fire". Even the justice who came up with that phrase disavowed it.
That's mincing words. Yelling "fire" is what incited the panic, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there were a fire many would regard it as a moral obligation to inform others as opposed to remaining silent ..
Pretty sure there's no problem yelling fire when there is, in fact, a fire.
If you actually believe there's a fire, even though there isn't, do we put in the pillory?
Nope. From Is It Illegal to Falsely Shout 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater? [mentalfloss.com]
That said, there’s good news for anyone whose panicked cry is an honest mistake. “Someone who shouts a warning in genuine error, with an intent to galvanize movement to safety, would not be properly punished for that speech,” Gewaily says.
Re: (Score:3)
It is absolutely not mincing words. It is pointing out essential nuance. It is not the act of yelling "fire" that is illegal. It is the malicious intent of knowingly leading people to act against their own interests. That is what is behind the spirit of limiting certain forms of speech. It's the same idea underpinning fraud (extracting money under false pretence), incitement to violence (tricking other people into committing a crime for you by falsely having them believe their life is in danger etc.) or de
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
This is objectively false, yet this analogy is repeated every time a 1st amendment issue comes up. The case where this quote comes from (Schenk v. United States) was partially overturned in 1969 in Brandeburg v. Ohio ( source [wikipedia.org]).
The government cannot restrict free speech. Please educate yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a lie if you believe it to be true. It's also not a lie if it's an unproven fact. Lies and facts are not related. To me, anything about god is misinformation because I am not religious. Religion is generally both unproven and based on conspiracies of divine intervention. People are dying over it in the middle east. People are even dying over it in terrorist attacks in the US. Can social media be punished for allowing religious talk? What about the wage gap where no actual evidence of apples-to-appl
Re: (Score:3)
You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
The "fire in a crowded theater" analogy was made by Oliver Wendell Holmes to justify imprisoning draft protesters during the First World War. The protestors were convicted and sent to prison, where they were abused by pro-war guards and soon died.
Schenck v. United States [wikipedia.org]
Holmes later regretted making the analogy and felt that Schenck v. US was one of his biggest mistakes.
Telling lies about health information that will get people killed is essentially the same thing.
Bullcrap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
What if there's a fire in the theater?
Re: (Score:2)
GM is not liable for someone killed in a car crash- unless they were responsible (through negligence or malice) for it.
Under current non-S230 rules, an online platform is considered a publisher, and they are in fact responsible for everything that anyone puts on the site.
You managed to get it entirely backwards. S230 puts online platforms in a parity situation with the likes of GM.
Re: We will see (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine passing a law making auto manufacturers exempt from lawsuits regarding drunk driving. We do not have an epidemic of cases suing GM everytime someone is killed in a car crash. The burden of proof still has to prove liability or negligence that would have otherwise saved a life.
Your point is sound, but we do see this type of behavior with guns quite regularly. It's not so much of a stretch to imagine it happening with tech.
I don't disagree, though, that this is nothing but politicians pandering.
Re: We will see (Score:2)
Re: We will see (Score:3)
I dont think section 230 should exist at all. These socials lobbied the WH heavily to make billions creating feuds that make the Hatfields and McCoys seem tame.
False. 47 USC 230 is from the mid 90s, long before social media was worth billions. In fact, when it was enacted, the only Dot-Com era IPO to have happened was Netscape's. Yahoo was a few months later and didn't have chat or anything at the time as I recall. What we now think of as social media back then was typically by group email, Usenet, or instant messaging.
Re: We will see (Score:2)
Re: We will see (Score:3)
Bills are often written like diffs; that's not new.
Section 230 has been amended precisely twice.
First, in 1998, what is now subsection (d) was added, such that providers must notify their customers that third-party filtering is available. I don't think anyone really bothers with it, though, and there's no penalty for failing to do so. There was also a minor change in what's now (e)(1) that is likely moot due to the bulk of the CDA being held unconstitutional a little later on.
Second, in 2018, due to FOSTA-S
Re: (Score:2)
That was the entire point. To kill CL personals. No way it was actually going to stop sex trafficking.
Re: (Score:2)
We do not have an epidemic of cases suing GM everytime someone is killed in a car crash.
But if we did, a law protecting them could be a good idea. We did have such a lawsuit that threatened to end user generated content on the internet.
Without section 230 there is still a burden of proof to hold the platform liable.
After an expensive lawsuit, yes. Very few companies could afford to take the chance. Repealing section 230 would be an enormous gift to the current market leaders such as Facebook because startups would have little chance of ever unseating them, since they would not have the funds to fight lawsuits based on user content. Now, they can get them dismissed imme
Re: (Score:3)
Vaccines boost your immune system's response to an infection. You may still get an infection, but often with far fewer and less severe symptoms. In fact, some symptoms are often a sign that your immune system is fighting back.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if you're trolling. In case you're not, what you said doesn't clash at all with what the parent said.
Whether a "dead cells" vaccine or an mRNA vaccine, a vaccination prompts an immune response to create antibodies/preparation for a particular disease. It can help prevent infection, and if one does get infected, it can help prevent a serious illness vis-a-vis the body being ready to fight it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to spread vaccine misinformation on a story about spreading vaccine misinformation?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe instead of trying to "own the libs" you should spend that time and energy reforming the GOP. Restore it to the days when it was based on principles such as being a big tent with a few basic platforms such as limited government and lower taxes. A party where a liberal minded person might disagree with you, but could still respect your opinion.
Not the party that tried to stage a violent coup on Jan 6, building gallows to hang the VP from and probably other lawmakers. Not a party that has politicized a d
Re: (Score:2)
Their hearts have nothing to do with this. Get your head out of the sand, friend.