pull down to refresh
178 sats \ 16 replies \ @Arceris 18h \ on: What do you think about section 230? Politics_And_Law
It is critical to ensuring the maximal reach of free speech. It's not just criminal liability, but groundless defamation and other claims that would see them as just another deep pocket without the immunity.
Issues with the platforms using it as a political hammer to enforce their own proclivities notwithstanding, the market can address that (and, over time, has done so).
Why is it critical to free speech? What about things like Nostr? I wonder if relays would fall under 230 protection.
Its also my understanding that section 230 doesn't mean a site owner cannot censor/moderate. They can.
What I wonder is why we even need this. Shouldn't the 1st amendment be enough?
reply
-
Nostr relays are likely protected now by Sec. 230.
-
Yes, that is correct - and was what my last point was referencing. Sec. 230 allows for moderation (internal censorship), but basically protects against liability for those moderation choices (external censorship). It does become somewhat murky when the moderation becomes so heavy as to look like publication control.
-
1A should be enough, and it may be enough (for now) to protect against state-imposed sanctions. It is not enough to protect against frivolous private actors. Also, I worry about the social consensus on 1A, the left has been antagonistic against it for some time (at least a decade in the recent incarnation). The right had been willing to protect it, then Charlie Kirk got assassinated and now the right is questioning the boundaries of 1A. This is an extremely bad situation.
Basically, Sec. 230 is like an anti-censorship filter. It makes external censorship harder, because you can't use the easy tools to change the calculus of the platforms. Removing Sec. 230 is like upping the OP_RETURN size for liability.
reply
now the right is questioning the boundaries of 1A
Malarky.
Exercising freedom of association and calls to enforce existing law against incitement and racketeering are not tantamount to questioning 1A boundary.
reply
now the right is questioning the boundaries of 1A
Not all are, but plenty of them are. When admin people like Bondi are using the phrase "hate speech" I consider that questioning the boundaries of 1A. Now, she got slammed for doing it and back peddled but it happened. Plenty on the right are hardly hard right. They have adopted plenty of left wing ideas because they do not understand the base ideas of natural rights and law.
Freedom of association is not understood by many on the right. Firing people because they have shared views their employers do not like is not a violation of 1A. I think we agree on that. Most of the state actions the left like to take should be social mechanisms. The problem is that both parties have not respected freedom of association.
reply
I remember when Rush Limbaugh's radio show was gaining traction in NYC and nationally, the left wanted to keep him off the air. This was in 1991. 60 minutes had a segment about Rush's growing popularity and of course there was the obligatory left wing talking point: he is spreading hate, therefore the FCC must intervene and take him off the air. I repeat, this was 1991
reply
I think you're getting your news from CNN, I watch the psyops pretty close and everything I've seen is setting the stage for RICO, Incitement, and the licensing requirements of the FCC.
None of that equates to you can't call Trump agent-orange on TV.
The Bondi example is a bad one, I assume because it's the only one. If you had a better one, share it. Hers was a short clip going around and she literally pointed to an existing statute.
reply
Not getting stuff from CNN. The Bondi clip is just an example of how clueless she is. Hate speech is a leftist idea and she was ridiculed by many on the right. Its just wild for her to start using this leftist term while talking about a man that literally opposed this idea.
Not sure what your point is. Trump isn't really an ideological guy but plenty in his admin are and I think the understanding of historic American views on rights is pretty poor. My point is that there are people online identify as Trump supporters that clearly do not understand rights. They often sound like Christian leftists. We have an education problem.
reply
I have yet to see anything out there that comes close to incitement under Brandenburg, except for maybe the texts & chats directly with the assassin. And those aren’t at issue.
But I have seen a sitting Senator, long a 1A and free speech champion, express doubt about it.
“Under normal times, in normal circumstances, I tend to think that the First Amendment should always be sort of the ultimate right. And that there should be almost no checks and balances on it. I don’t feel that way anymore,” Lummis added.
I agree that all is not lost, as many on the right are still willing to hold people to account on this, but for the first time in years, I’ve had to had discussions about 1A with my normie IRL friends (they’re mostly with me on the right) when they start trying to justify more invasive responses, “because the left did it to us.”
reply
Incitement is in the statute Bondi referenced when clarifying her inept "hate speech" interview.
Calling people terrorists and other such labels of threat give license to violent "self-defense" where no violence actually existed may end up being tested and probably should be.
The FCC/NBC/ABC framing being about free-speech is gaslighting non-sense, can't believe you'd link to Semafor.
A loss of license for the networks wouldn't be on speech grounds, the narrative has already been seeded about racketeering and election interference given the "free" campaign contributions the left gets by these licensed entities circumventing other established criteria for said license like equal time.
reply
Most critiques of Trump are terrible. CNN and their ilk are terrible. CNN and the like literally want democrats and they are completely lost on this stuff. They literally just oppose stuff that Trump does because he does it. They are all over the place. I think you may be reading too much into my comments.
reply
Its just wild how inept many in Trump's admin actually are. I mean, Biden's admin was also like this but it as a different type of the same thing. It really is a reflection of how ignorant the nation is on rights and speech. We have allowed Marxist theories about rights and speech to infect the minds of the population. The historic views of these things are not taught in schools. They haven't been for at least 40 years, probably longer.
The right wing lives on the surface far too much and they lose because they ignore the dumb arguments from the left. They are dumb... but they have to be rhetorically destroyed.
reply
I linked to that site because it was the first that I found with that quote from Lummis. There are others. But the rest of that article is crap.
Regarding the Bondi situation, she did cite one statute, then proceeded to totally misconstrue it. But whatever, I'm willing to agree that that's a one off and related to being improperly prepared for that stand up. She has walked it back. But in other contexts she has supported red flag laws & other significant 2A restrictions, so my sense is that her gut instinct was her real feelings, and the walking it back is contrived.
The above link, btw, is to FIRE, where I was a 1A and 4A civil liberties attorney for a time (about 10 years ago now).
reply
Much better article, and Bondi doesn't have a lot of fans already within MAGA, given the lack of arrests... Wouldn't surprise me if she's been set up to fail so they can bring Gaetz back in to the conversation.
I don't think you'll need to come out of retirement anytime soon. That article makes me even more confident that "stochastic terrorism" type stuff will be tested, but not as confident that they'll use every avenue to go for the head of the snake funding the psyops making regular people talk like that.
reply
then Charlie Kirk got assassinated and now the right is questioning the boundaries of 1A. This is an extremely bad situation.
Yeah, I agree. Its not surprising though. Most people are extremely ignorant about the base issues at play. Sure, everyone has an opinion but the basis is mostly their tribe and feelings. Few people understand the difference between positive and negative rights for example. Few even understand the context around the founding documents of the US. So we can't really have intelligent conversations with most people. Weaponized ignorance is in play.
You make a good point about protection against frivolous private actors. We don't see this working on places like YouTube where record labels flag content that should be under fair use. That gets into the nonsense of IP law.
I get the feeling that Section 230 isn't the problem or solution but I don't know enough yet to have a strong opinion.
reply
Agreed, IP law is an entirely separate issue. I generally like the writings of Steven Kinsella. I went to law school to do patent & general IP law, so it has been a longstanding feeling of dissonance that I generally dislike IP law (though I am much more negative toward copyright law than patent, and generally more accepting of TM than either of the others).
reply
Kinsella's work red pilled me on IP law
reply