slug.com slug.com

2 28

DiscloseTV tweets: "JUST IN - North Idaho internet provider blocks Facebook, Twitter on its service because the platforms are engaged in the censorship of their customers and information"

CindyA 3 Jan 11
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

This is awesome!!!!!

2

Well within their rights to do so.... just like it's well within the right of FB and Twitter to do what they do.
See how that works, the Free Market? 😀

Wrong!
Read our Constitution

Not while they're hiding behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996.)
It shields them from any liability for content, based on the ruse that they are just service, not a publisher. The moment they took down the first post that they disagreed with, they became liable for everything on their site.
But, of course, the FCC cashes their checks and lets them continue to play both sides of that fence.
See how that works, Mega-corporations teaming with Big Government to fuck up the Free Market? 😀

@rway
You confuse editorial control with being a publisher. A private corporation has every right to dictate its terms of agreement and to determine who and who does not come into it's company. In the case of social media, this means they have every right to determine what speech they do or do not want within site. This type of editorial control does not mean that they are publishing content since that has to voluntarily come from its users and therefore it is not a violation of their section 230 protection

@CindyA
Please educate us on which section of the Constitution prohibits private corporations from taking or dropping clients?

@TheMiddleWay Editorial control sounds more like it, but they use the terms interchangeably; and no, they don't have the right under Section 230. If they want to exercise the right to delete, then they're liable for everything they don't delete, because they've tacitly condoned it by allowing it on their site.
You're either a passive "platform", or you're not... gotta pick one.

@rway
So you are saying that slug.com has no right to remove legal pornography from its site without losing its section 230 protection?

Or the social media dating site Christian mingle has no right to remove satanistic, muslim, or Jewish content from its site without losing its section 230 protection?

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:171204
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.