Discussion:
Biden could alter Big Tech's Section 230 protections, reinstate 'net neutrality'
Add Reply
Johnny
2020-11-13 15:41:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
By Audrey Conklin
Published 3 hours ago

The list of challenges facing President-elect Joe Biden on Day One
includes addressing concerns about Big Tech that have seen a crescendo,
as massive firms that profit from user data wield increasing power over
how Americans communicate with each other.

While President Trump and Republican lawmakers have criticized tech and
social platforms for what they consider censorship of conservative
views, Democrats argue that the platforms are failing to adequately
police hate speech and violent content.

They agree, however, on one method of resolving those issues. Both
Republicans and Democrats -- including Biden -- have called for
revoking Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which
offers liability protections to Internet platforms that allow
third-party users to post content on their websites.

Cut!

Some Republicans have warned that more regulation and censorship is a
slippery slope that could potentially suppress users' First Amendment
rights online.

It's a tricky situation, however, since the Constitution prohibits the
U.S. government from limiting free speech but places no such
restrictions on business.

The Supreme Court, in fact, has ruled that corporations enjoy
free-speech protections of their own.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/biden-section-230-net-neutrality
El Castor
2020-11-13 22:08:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
By Audrey Conklin
Published 3 hours ago
The list of challenges facing President-elect Joe Biden on Day One
includes addressing concerns about Big Tech that have seen a crescendo,
as massive firms that profit from user data wield increasing power over
how Americans communicate with each other.
While President Trump and Republican lawmakers have criticized tech and
social platforms for what they consider censorship of conservative
views, Democrats argue that the platforms are failing to adequately
police hate speech and violent content.
They agree, however, on one method of resolving those issues. Both
Republicans and Democrats -- including Biden -- have called for
revoking Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which
offers liability protections to Internet platforms that allow
third-party users to post content on their websites.
Cut!
Some Republicans have warned that more regulation and censorship is a
slippery slope that could potentially suppress users' First Amendment
rights online.
I agree with those Republicans. The Left is lusting after laws that
discourage, or preferably prohibit, anything they care to interpret as
"hate speech". I've posted Black median IQ numbers (85) on this site.
There are Democrats who would love to see me arrested for that. Some
would like to see scientists fired, ostracized, and even arrested, for
daring to conduct research on the subject. And the list goes on -- God
help anyone in that Left Wing distopian world of the future who would
dare to criticize Islam or refer to a transgender person by their
biological gender.

"British police forces arrested at least nine people a day for
“offensive” online comments last year."
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2017/10/14/british-police-arrest-at-least-3395-people-for-offensive-online-comments-one-year/

"British woman arrested for identifying gender of transgender
attorney"
https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2019/02/10/british-woman-arrested-identifying-gender-transgender-attorney/

"Swedish Court Convicts Pensioner for Saying Somalis Are ‘Lazy’ "
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/03/31/91-year-old-swede-convicted-anti-islam-hate-speech/

"After retiring from her career as a supermodel and actress, Brigitte
Bardot hit the headlines several times for her controversial remarks
about the role of Islam in French society. Indeed, she was convicted
of incitement of racial hatred (under this French law) no fewer than
five times – mainly for comments highly critical of France’s
immigration and assimilation policies.""
https://freespeechdebate.com/case/brigitte-bardots-repeated-convictions-for-inciting-racial-hatred/
Post by Johnny
It's a tricky situation, however, since the Constitution prohibits the
U.S. government from limiting free speech but places no such
restrictions on business.
The Supreme Court, in fact, has ruled that corporations enjoy
free-speech protections of their own.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/biden-section-230-net-neutrality
Loading...