If it’s not illegal to say it then it should be illegal to stop it from being said

Comes with this: ‘The Five’ song about politics hits NUMBER ONE, so Twitter BANS IT!

And let me add this from Instapundit as well. It’s the comments thread that is of particular interest.

THE NEW RULES DON’T ONLY WORK ONE WAY: The woman who screamed ‘Nazi’ at a Trump supporter has been hounded out of a job. I don’t approve of people being hounded out of jobs for what they say, or even scream. But I didn’t make the new rules, and they won’t change back to something more civilized unless they’re uncomfortable for the left as well as the right.

This is the top comment.

Going by their fulminations on Twitter, it seems some right-wingers think this is about playing the left at its own game, as right-wingers have been the targets for myriad twitch-hunts in the past. But these people are just dressing up their own lack of principle and shrill, pearl-clutching authoritarianism as tactical nous.

The author of that article needs to read a treatise on the Prisoner’s Dilemma in game theory. Then perhaps he would see that tit-for-tat is necessary to deter bad actors.

Nobody likes outrage mobs. But the left pushed outrage mobs into the mainstream, and for a long time they had that particular tactic to themselves. They also pushed the concept so far that trivial things caused outrage, or even in some cases made up things.

Outrage became a weapon, a cudgel they gleefully wielded. I contend that it’s impossible to curb their use of that weapon unless they see it used against them.

Free speech, but on any platform like Twitter or Facebook, if it’s not illegal to say it, it should be illegal to prevent it from being said.

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to If it’s not illegal to say it then it should be illegal to stop it from being said

  1. stackja

    The easily offended want stifled speech.

  2. BoyfomTottenham

    Spot on, Steve!

  3. Tom

    Now that the system has dealt with the attempt by Democrats and their media sycophants to undo the 2016 election via the Mueller witchhunt, their worst nightmare is coming true: the rest of Trump’s first term promises to be wildly successful and his second term will castrate the Democrats as a political force for many years.

    Meanwhile, you’d think Democrat Party’s backers in Big Tech would be smart enough to fear what Trump is now able to bring down on their heads — but they’re not. It’s still the same fascist arrogance.

    They’re going to learn the hard way not to pick a fight with a master tactician.

  4. Didn’t Sinc say something to the effect that these are private companies and if you don’t like the way they operate, go somewhere else? Though he didn’t say where.

  5. mem

    https://www.google.com/search?q=i+believe%2C+song&rlz=1C1GIWA_enAU583AU591&oq=i+believe%2C+song&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.12601j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Pretty soon they will be offended songs. Oh I forgot, Christmas carols are now outlawed in many schools.

  6. nb

    Outrage became a weapon, a cudgel they gleefully wielded. I contend that it’s impossible to curb their use of that weapon unless they see it used against them.

    There is a logic to this, but beware. The aim of the far-left of the Democrats is not to win an election, or win any particular fight, or out-shout anyone. The aim of the far-left is to destroy the republic. Pitting American against American helps facilitate this.
    Meanwhile, Democrat leadership can use disturbance to distract from the crimes they have committed and do not want investigated. Palling up with their far-left colleagues to destroy civil society and the institutions of the USA is not too high a price.
    For us, sit tight, grab the popcorn. Support the investigations into Democrat crimes. Revel in how current investigations are driving Democrats nuts. It is extremely likely we will see a trail of crimes leading to some very high profile Democrats. Be patient.
    I prefer popcorn to cudgels.
    See Cat post http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/06/09/corruption-and-criminality/ , but there is so much more to come…

  7. Tim Neilson

    Free speech, but on any platform like Twitter or Facebook, if it’s not illegal to say it, it should be illegal to prevent it from being said.

    Sort of, but not exactly.

    A “platform like Twitter or Facebook” claims immunity from legal liability for what’s posted on them. They do this by claiming to be a ‘common carrier’, i.e. only a service provider and not an editor.
    So, if they want to refuse service to ‘The Five’, the correct response is for them to be legally declared not to be a ‘common carrier’ and then for them to be sued into bankruptcy by everyone who’s been defamed on them, and prosecuted for crimes for every incitement to violence that’s been broadcast on them.

  8. They do this by claiming to be a ‘common carrier’, i.e. only a service provider and not an editor.

    They should not be able to claim that they are a ‘common carrier’ and then block users. It would be like AT&T blocking phone calls. The intent of a common carrier is that they are just a carrier and don’t listen in to what’s being conveyed on their network (that’s the job of the state).

    But this is where the entire situation has become a farce. Google (YouTube), Facebook, Twitter and whoever else, needs to be brought into line throughout the world and listed as one or the other (depending on how these things are managed around the world) and sued/fined if they break the rules.

    Little wonder they have earned the moniker ‘Masters of the Universe’. They get to have their cake and eat it as well.

  9. Behind Enemy Lines

    While I don’t have any real knowledge of the subject, I understand that US law forbids conspiring to deprive people of their civil rights. Do we have any such law in Australia? If so, has it ever been used to tackle these situations? How about tortious interference? I have relatively little faith in Australian courts, but am wondering if we already have tools we could use, given the right case.

  10. Neenee

    Twitter should let the banned Conservative Voices back onto their platform, without restriction. It’s called Freedom of Speech, remember. You are making a Giant Mistake!

    Australian Rugby should let the banned Christian Voices back onto their sport, without restriction. It’s called Freedom of Speech, remember. You are making a Giant Mistake!

  11. thefrollickingmole

    the correct response is for them to be legally declared not to be a ‘common carrier’ and then for them to be sued into bankruptcy by everyone who’s been defamed on them, and prosecuted for crimes for every incitement to violence that’s been broadcast on them.

    This.
    Until they are threatened with losing the legal immunity which has directly facilitated their profits SFA will change.

    Even treating them the same as a newspaper would kill their “all content, no responsibility” model stone dead.

  12. John Constantine

    No three laws of robotics when we have robot AI programs set loose to be judge jury and executioner.

    Comrades.

  13. Christmas carols are now outlawed in many schools.

    Please post me the name of any Australian school which has “outlawed” Christmas carols.

  14. No three laws of robotics when we have robot AI programs set loose to be judge jury and executioner.

    Well, Facebook appears to be headed by an android. I wonder who does the programming for that one?

  15. cohenite

    A “platform like Twitter or Facebook” claims immunity from legal liability for what’s posted on them. They do this by claiming to be a ‘common carrier’, i.e. only a service provider and not an editor.
    So, if they want to refuse service to ‘The Five’, the correct response is for them to be legally declared not to be a ‘common carrier’ and then for them to be sued into bankruptcy by everyone who’s been defamed on them, and prosecuted for crimes for every incitement to violence that’s been broadcast on them.

    Anti-trust legislation would be a good starting point.

  16. cohenite

    Please post me the name of any Australian school which has “outlawed” Christmas carols.

    Al-Faisal College
    Malek Fahd Isl.mic School
    Unity Grammar College
    Isl.mic College of Brisbane
    Isl.mic College of South Australia
    Ilim College
    The Isl.mic Schools of Victoria
    Australian Isl.mic College
    Langford Isl.mic College

    Now fuck off.

  17. cohenite

    Please post me the name of any Australian school which has “outlawed” Christmas carols.

    Here is a list of RoP schools.

    Now fuck off.

  18. Iampeter

    Twitter should let the banned Conservative Voices back onto their platform, without restriction. It’s called Freedom of Speech, remember. You are making a Giant Mistake!

    Twitter deciding who gets to use their platform is what’s actually called freedom of speech.
    It’s also called property rights, freedom of association and individual rights in general.
    You know, the basics that those of us who aren’t leftists support.

    A President threatening a private enterprise like this is a massive assault on all our freedoms and should generate outrage from anyone who isn’t a complete leftist.

    So, it’ll fall on deaf ears here and among equally confused conservatives everywhere. Derp.

  19. Richard Bender

    Who is stopping you from saying things? Twitter? No. Facebook? No. Neither of these entities has any legal power to prohibit you from saying anything. What they can do is prevent you from using their businesses as a platform to say it. As these are private businesses, this is entirely their right.

    If Donald Trump can’t tell the difference between the government and private business, it just shows how totally unsuitable for the job of President he really is.

  20. Iampeter

    A “platform like Twitter or Facebook” claims immunity from legal liability for what’s posted on them. They do this by claiming to be a ‘common carrier’, i.e. only a service provider and not an editor.
    So, if they want to refuse service to ‘The Five’, the correct response is for them to be legally declared not to be a ‘common carrier’ and then for them to be sued into bankruptcy by everyone who’s been defamed on them, and prosecuted for crimes for every incitement to violence that’s been broadcast on them.

    Um, no.
    Being a “common carrier” is a disastrous regulation that is imposed on tech companies and doesn’t protect them from anything. Even if they weren’t a common carrier you still couldn’t sue them for those things in most contexts because they quite rightly aren’t responsible, so you wouldn’t be able to prove damages.
    In the context that you would be able to prove damages, you SHOULD be able to sue them, even if they are a common carrier.
    Your issue is the same as those that gave us 18c. You want to sue them for things you shouldn’t be able to sue them for because you disagree with them politically.
    You want them “sued into bankruptcy” for different opinions to yours.

    In other words, you and the other hopeless conservatives making this same hopeless argument, want to censor those you disagree with.
    Yet at the same time you are so confused about everything that you somehow still think you’re on the side of free speech.

    And to think, this appalling argument was apparently first cooked up by none other than Ben Shapiro, a top law student and professional political commentator. He apparently even briefed Ted Cruz to take this line of questioning when they dragged Zuckerberg into their thug hearings.

    The conservative movement is beyond parody at this point.

  21. Bosnich

    Richard Bender …”how totally unsuitable for the job of President he really is”.
    So Clinton would have been very suitable ?

  22. cohenite

    Space chook, twotter etc are public spaces. That’s it, end of story. They get huge tax and revenue benefits from that status. They cannot then censor potential users; by doing that they are claiming private property rights. Their position is contradictory.

  23. Who is stopping you from saying things? Twitter? No. Facebook? No. Neither of these entities has any legal power to prohibit you from saying anything. What they can do is prevent you from using their businesses as a platform to say it. As these are private businesses, this is entirely their right.

    If Donald Trump can’t tell the difference between the government and private business, it just shows how totally unsuitable for the job of President he really is.

    Dick Bender, then those entities are publishers and not carriers. Therefore they should come under the same rules as any other publisher. But that would be rather uncomfortable, wouldn’t it?

    Trump can well see the difference, that’s why he’s asking why are they considered carriers. That’s rather uncomfortable, isn’t it?

  24. J.H.

    “Free speech, but on any platform like Twitter or Facebook, if it’s not illegal to say it, it should be illegal to prevent it from being said.”

    I wholeheartedly agree. My sentiments exactly.

  25. I Am Peter is correct to an extent.

    Go and make an alternative, like BitChute is an alternative to You Tube, or Brave is an alternative to Chrome.

    If you hate Google and FaceBook etc, then it is up to YOU to cut THEM off.

    These tech giants claiming both common carrier status and not when convenient is total bullshit though.

  26. There’s no point in having alternatives if no one has even heard of them, like BitChute. I tried to look at the site but got errors, it certainly wouldn’t load with Firefox.

    They are simply too big and ubiquitous to cut off.

  27. nb

    @ Iampeter #3039427, posted on June 10, 2019 at 5:46 pm:
    Your post inspired me to search around for clear summaries of common carrier vs publisher. I found nothing! That’s not to say there isn’t anything…
    Seems to me, from what I saw, this is a pretty complicated area of law, and in large measure ill-defined, at least for the casual researcher.
    I think you are correct in saying that the default position ought to be that Twitter et al should be able to control their content. Personally, I am mystified why the disaffected don’t move en masse to a nominated new platform. I would expect, with sufficient publicity, they could bring their audiences with them. For example, all the disaffected on YouTube could move to BitChute, or load to BitChute in addition to YouTube, and make sure everyone knew about it. They don’t. Or, at least, they don’t advertise their presence there. Seems weird to me.
    On YouTube, at least (that is all I use of the major names), I frequently get the impression that solutions and strategies are less welcome than the opportunity to complain and point score. Sad.

  28. Tel

    Being a “common carrier” is a disastrous regulation that is imposed on tech companies and doesn’t protect them from anything. Even if they weren’t a common carrier you still couldn’t sue them for those things in most contexts because they quite rightly aren’t responsible, so you wouldn’t be able to prove damages.

    In the unlikely case anyone was considering taking legal advice from Iampeter, your best bet is to recognize that he has absolutely no concept of the law and continually muddles up his own personal preferences with the way the world works.

    https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=49&page=transcript

    Sec. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.

    Now, possibly you have a personal disagreement with a law that’s existed since 1887, and just maybe there could even be better ways to do things. But, that’s all irrelevant unless a large amount of existing law gets revoked, then common carrier provisions are what we are stuck with.

    As to whether the Internet is a common carrier, I believe in Australia it is regulated but ACMA and they seem to regard it as such … while in the USA the FEC claim jurisdiction and recently decided to not apply normal common carrier rules (that was the gist of the Network Neutrality decisions). As for whether certain other companies like Facebook are common carriers … probably not right now … but they could easily be declared to be. The various Washington commissions have amazing powers to make such declarations, probably way too much power, but that won’t change soon.

  29. nb

    Frank Walker from National Tiles #3039527, posted on June 10, 2019 at 7:17 pm

    If you hate Google and FaceBook etc, then it is up to YOU to cut THEM off.

    Quite so. And the content creators could join forces too to make it work.
    As I understand it, Jordan Peterson and David Rubin are trying to develop an alternative venue. I am unsure why existing sites would not suffice.

  30. max

    Let me say it at the beginning: YouTube should get to do whatever it wants with its channel. This is a matter of private property.

    YouTube has created an algorithm to go after people accused of using hate speech. I can’t figure out from the definitions exactly what hate speech is.

    Here’s what I think it is: any speech that angers a liberal who controls a large advertising budget, and who is spending money to get YouTube’s algorithm to post advertisements. YouTube does not want these advertisements posted on a video that might embarrass the liberal in charge of the advertising budget. Somebody who is the target of the so-called hate speech is going to contact the company that is running the ad. Then the company is going to contact YouTube. Then YouTube’s knee-jerk liberalism will go into effect.

    Free hosting is a tremendous service for somebody who wants to get his ideas in front of the public. Google searches will identify these videos. Lots of people will watch a video free of charge that is hosted free of charge.

    The secret is not playing the game according to YouTube’s rules. YouTube’s rules mean that YouTube is dependent upon third-party advertisements posted on videos. Don’t allow it.

    As long as YouTube’s algorithm cannot find anything objectionable on a YouTube-hosted video, the person producing the video is home free.

    Use YouTube to drive people to your harder core materials, which may be videos on your website that are not hosted by YouTube. You might use Vimeo Pro. It’s cheap: $7 a month. Even better from a point of view of policing, you can use Amazon’s AWS service with HTML-5 videos. You pay a fraction of a penny per view, and nobody polices them. Amazon does not get involved with content that is hosted on its cloud service. Amazon ignores them as long as the company keeps paying their bills. It has no algorithm.

    There is a positioning advantage this way. If you use a YouTube video, it’s perceived as being worth practically nothing. Everybody knows that YouTube videos are free. Free = low perceived value. In contrast, a video hosted by Amazon doesn’t have any web host logo on it. So, it has a much higher perceived value.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/19590.cfm

  31. nb

    Tel #3039564, posted on June 10, 2019 at 7:59 pm:

    Sec. 3 etc.

    Sure. Sure. But it is not as easy as that. For a start telecommunications have had to be brought into the definition of common carrier by additional legislation. Second, the concept of common carrier is bound up with the internet neutrality issue. Net neutrality no longer applies. Third, even if you can read something as clear as day in legislation, or in case law, that doesn’t mean you have it right. Not infrequently legislation that appears to say one thing can have emerge with an entirely different interpretation after having been subjected to the scrutiny of a court.
    Common carrier v publisher is an area I would suggest that angels should fear to tread.

  32. Tel

    Here’s an example of the common carrier defense in use:

    https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/updated-fedex-response-to-department-of-justice-charges/

    FedEx, like all common carriers, transports a wide range of goods, including some that can be harmful if misused or abused. Illegal activity by online pharmacies that results in prescription drug abuse and deaths is a problem that needs to be solved. We stand ready to help deliver the solution by working with law enforcement, but the responsibility to monitor, regulate or police the activities of doctors and pharmacists lies with licensing, regulatory and law enforcement authorities, not shipping companies.

    Because the carrier cannot realistically look inside all the packages, and because for non-discrimination reasons it’s generally a bad idea for the carrier to start attempting to look inside packages … therefore we cannot hold the carrier responsible for the contents of those packages. If shipments are illegal, then the person who consigned the shipment will be blamed, or sometimes to person who received that shipment.

  33. Tel

    For a start telecommunications have had to be brought into the definition of common carrier by additional legislation.

    You would think that, but no … actually it turns out we live in an age of the Fourth Branch of government where commissions and agencies can create such definitions with a wave of the hand. That gives them extraordinary powers, and appears to defy ordinary constitutional law, but there you go that’s how it works.

  34. Tel

    Second, the concept of common carrier is bound up with the internet neutrality issue. Net neutrality no longer applies.

    And ask yourself who decided that? It was Ajit Pai at the FCC who was never elected, nor is he any part of Congress, yes he makes laws. He could tomorrow decide that Facebook is a common carrier but AT&T is not a common carrier. This may sound weird, but that’s what happened.

  35. candy

    I don’t find it a problem if she was “hounded” out of her job. If you are going to go around harassing other people in public places then your high profile job may well be at stake. I mean, how can you be in a respectable job and yet act so abusively in public? It does not compute.

    It’s not about the politics. It’s about decent behaviour and expected standards.

  36. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3039427, posted on June 10, 2019 at 5:46 pm

    Iamashiteater

    Look up the statute and case cited below, and let me have your critique as to why they don’t actually provide protections for common carriers which aren’t generally available to others.

    em>For example, common carriers are exempt from liability for transmission of copyrighted works (Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC 110(a) (1977); or the qualified immunity from liability for the transmission of a defamatory message. OBrien v. Western Union, 113 F2d 529, 540-43 (1st Cir. 1940). –[NY p. 57]

    nb
    #3039596, posted on June 10, 2019 at 8:25 pm

    Your admonitions are valid of course, but despite the potential vagaries of the specifics there are undoubtedly general immunities prima facie available to common carriers in the USA that aren’t available to others.

  37. nb

    Tel #3039597, posted on June 10, 2019 at 8:25 pm:
    I’d be very careful about directly transferring a principle relating to goods over to telecommunications, even where the overarching law seems the same.
    This case was from 2014 and in relation to goods. I am not sure, with the rise and demise of internet neutrality, that common carrier even applies at all anymore.
    I suggest being very careful about forming opinions from one case relating to a different class of enterprise, particularly where the relevant concept might not even apply anymore.
    Five years can be a long time in law. 130 years is an eternity. And yet, of course, we are still operating legal principles thousands of years old. The only way through it is an intimate knowledge of the field. We need an expert…

  38. Cassie of Sydney

    “Frank Walker from National Tiles
    #3039527, posted on June 10, 2019 at 7:17 pm
    I Am Peter is correct to an extent.

    Go and make an alternative, like BitChute is an alternative to You Tube

    Fine except Telstra has, since Christchurch, blocked BitChute. You see leftist activists have also been lobbying for a lot of alternative media to be blocked/banned/binned.

  39. Tel

    I’d be very careful about directly transferring a principle relating to goods over to telecommunications, even where the overarching law seems the same.

    I can tell you that the legal systems of most of the Western world were very happy to take the principle from goods over to telecommunications. It started with FDR when he wanted to take AT&T down a peg and that resulted in the Communications Act of 1934.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

    That’s where the idea of “Title II: Common carrier” came into existence with respect to telecommunications. Many times they tried to pass Network Neutrality legislation through Congress and failed … but Obama did the end-run on that and simply got the FCC to declare the Internet to fall under the existing “Title II” category with zero legislation required. This status only lasted briefly and was then reversed, again by the FCC but this time under PDT.

    Australia is a bit different, we started with a single government carrier (Telecom) but it changed through multiple iterations and the law got shuffled around under Postmaster General Helen Coonan where all private ISP’s in Australia are now forced to become members of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, in a kind of compulsory unionization process. Corporatism in other words.

  40. nb

    Gosh. So much for my suggestion to use BitChute!
    Here is a conversation I just had with Telstra help:
    ———————————-
    Me: I cannot connect to BitChute. Can you tell me why?
    Telstra help: let me check on that first. Are you able to access other website?
    Me: Yes. I have just searched ‘Telstra Bitchute’and I am told Telstra is blocking Bitchute.
    Is this correct?
    Telstra help: Let me further check on that. As I can see here we do not block bitchute. Is that a third party application?

    Me: ok, I have tried accessing Bitchute using chrome, edge and firefox
    Me: oh, here is a statement from Bitchute itself:
    Me: https://bitchute.info/censorship-of-the-internet-is-on-the-rise/
    Telstra help: Let me try to seek assistance to my superior
    Me: After the events in Christchurch, ISP’s in Australia and New Zealand took the unprecedented step of blocking their customers access to entire sites across the Internet. BitChute was one of the sites affected and remains blocked at this time. We were not contacted prior to the censorship. Instead, we have received a steady flood of people noting that the site is unavailable in the two countries unless a VPN is used. BitChute is strongly opposed to this direct contravention to the civil liberties that citizens are supposed to have. If you agree with us and do not wish to see this type of censorship becoming more common place you may wish to vote with your wallet and change your ISP. A list of ISP’s that took this action have been included below. Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ. Telstra AU and Vodafone AU.
    Me: So, yes, it looks like Telstra is blocking Bitchute
    Telstra help: Thank you for patiently waiting. As I ‘ve talked to my superior she told me that bitchute was already been blocked by telstra and some other sites.
    Me: Ok. Thank you for the information. As I do require access to bitchute of course I will reconsider my continued custom with Telstra.
    Telstra help: Thank you for understanding. It’s been a pleasure assisting you. Would there be anything else you want to know?
    Me: No, that is it, thank you. Cheers.
    ————————————-
    Hmm. I believe I can still get it using a VPN, or of course with another ISP. But, frankly, I am shocked.

  41. nb

    Oh, by the way, thanks Cassie. I had no idea.

  42. Sunni Bakchat

    Everyone’s forgetting Bill Clinton brought in the law that exempted social media from the first amendment. Just a coincidence?

    If there is no more journalism just social media, the power of the first amendment will be much less relevant.

    Change the law-change social media’s modus operandi.

  43. nb

    Tel #3039601, posted on June 10, 2019 at 8:32 pm

    It was Ajit Pai at the FCC who was never elected, nor is he any part of Congress, yes he makes laws.

    Yes, the administrative state is more than dangerous.
    This is an interesting discussion. It would be great to have a Cat guest expert on USA law/(admin edict!) in relation to the state of play. From Tel’s comments, and from what I have seen elsewhere, it seems the common carrier principle no longer applies.

    Tel #3039564, posted on June 10, 2019 at 7:59 pm

    As for whether certain other companies like Facebook are common carriers … probably not right now … but they could easily be declared to be.

    If common carrier is no longer applicable, then 99% of people’s complaints along the common carrier line are irrelevant. So the discussion needs to move on.
    I understand where you are coming from Tel, but I just have a slightly different inflection. I prefer the Gordian knot cutting principle of private property. That also happens to be consistent with this blog’s averred principles. It is better than getting mixed up in arguments about legislation/whose free speech?/admin declarations/bias, and so on.
    To find out that Telstra is blocking BitChute is deeply disturbing. I am often in a regional area – swapping is not a straightforward matter. 🙁

  44. Sunni Bakchat

    The law you’re looking for is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 1996. Otherwise known as Title V.

    The reason the law’s not been changed is that it was a bi-partisan vote twenty years ago and many of the power brokers are still elected. The dominant view is that without Section 230 Facebook et al wouldn’t exist. Ironically it was the Stratton Oakmont case that goaded legislators into action.

    How many clever cats know who Stratton Oakmont is?

    It’s not black and white. There are defined tests by precedent. There are criminal carve outs in the legislation. The legislation is however suffering from unintended consequences. The dividing line is one of editorial publication or simple publication. One might argue exclusion of views is defacto editorial intervention. Is there a case on this aspect someone?

    It is the Communications Decency Act. “le poisson d’un homme est le poison d’un autre homme”

  45. Iampeter

    In the unlikely case anyone was considering taking legal advice from Iampeter, your best bet is to recognize that he has absolutely no concept of the law and continually muddles up his own personal preferences with the way the world works.

    Even you don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
    You’re issue is that unlike you, I have a clear position on what a government should and shouldn’t do and why.

    You do not. Certain other triggered dummies here and you, just spout irrelevant technicalities that you think is what passes for discussing these issues because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Now, possibly you have a personal disagreement with a law that’s existed since 1887, and just maybe there could even be better ways to do things. But, that’s all irrelevant unless a large amount of existing law gets revoked, then common carrier provisions are what we are stuck with.

    See?
    I guess nothing can be done or discussed about laws because they were passed in certain years and also there other laws and stuff.
    Deep stuff.

    What about Clive Palmer, Tel? What about the balance of power? What about other word soups that you think pass for political discourse?

    You’re a clueless idiot.

  46. Kneel

    Even you don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
    Sure he does – in essence, “don’t listen to this twat” (that’s you, Peter) is what he said, he just said it nicely.

    You’re a clueless idiot.
    Projection, much?

    Anti-trust laws – if you are big enough, and have enough market share, you better not get caught abusing it. Removing content – especially political content – on a whim, is abusing your market power.
    Sooner or later (I hope sooner), someone will force them to take a stand in a court of law – until then, they’ll keep playing the “we’re responsible corporate citizens” schtick to remove what they find objectionable in the name of “safe spaces”, “protecting the children” et al, ad nauseum.

  47. Arky

    Go and make an alternative, like BitChute is an alternative to You Tube, or Brave is an alternative to Chrome.

    ..
    They tried that.
    The banks cut them off.
    Or the ISPs cut them off.
    The problem becomes you have to build an entire an entire vertical structure to evade Iamdickheads progressive corporate mates.
    Not possible.
    Trump has to act before the dems get back in and bring in hate speech provisions under the cover of breaking up tech monopolies.

  48. Tel

    The problem becomes you have to build an entire an entire vertical structure to evade Iamdickheads progressive corporate mates.
    Not possible.

    The banks are a cartel, built with government backing. You cannot legally build a parallel system … as demonstrated by what happened to Australians attempting to operate Bitcoin exchanges.

    https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00165

    Banking in Australia is a tightly regulated industry, it would make a lot of sense to say that they must provide non-discriminatory services. Effectively equivalent to a “common carrier” in the domain of payments, transfers, etc.

  49. Iampeter

    Sure he does – in essence, “don’t listen to this twat” (that’s you, Peter) is what he said, he just said it nicely.

    You’re so right. Everyone should listen to the confused Marxist babble from Tel, Arky and yourself instead. Makes sense.

    They tried that.
    The banks cut them off.
    Or the ISPs cut them off.
    The problem becomes you have to build an entire an entire vertical structure to evade Iamdickheads progressive corporate mates.
    Not possible.

    Ah yes. The classic whine of the entitled leftist.
    Why you never had a chance! Those Zuckerburgers are a bunch of phonies! If ISP’s and banks could be strong armed into giving you stuff, why you’d be a high powered, tech company CEO too! No fair! Waa, waa, waa!

    Banking in Australia is a tightly regulated industry, it would make a lot of sense to say that they must provide non-discriminatory services.

    Sure. That makes sense if you’re a leftist.
    To those of us who are not left wing, it would make sense to just deregulate the banks.

  50. Crossie

    Fine except Telstra has, since Christchurch, blocked BitChute. You see leftist activists have also been lobbying for a lot of alternative media to be blocked/banned/binned.

    And any new social media will meet the same fate because The Masters of the Universe have bought themselves a lot of politicians with their generous contributions.

  51. John A

    nb #3039878, posted on June 11, 2019, at 12:00 am

    If common carrier is no longer applicable, then 99% of people’s complaints along the common carrier line are irrelevant. So the discussion needs to move on.

    If that is so, then the so-called Masters of the Universe must be precluded from using it as a defence against leaving certain material online.

    The problem is their two-faced hypocrisy: having their cake and eating it, too. One day someone with deep enough pockets will have to make them choke on their cake.

  52. Iampeter

    Tech companies aren’t using anything as a defense of anything because they aren’t guilty of anything.
    They are not liable for libellous actions someone undertakes using their platforms. Nor is any business.

    Conservatives just want to find reasons to sue them because they disagree with them politically.
    Which would amount to actual censorship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.