Post by Josh Rosenbluth Post by El Castor Post by Johnny
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 17:09:58 -0800
Post by El Castor Post by Johnny
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 10:16:20 -0800
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:36:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:09:40 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth Post by Johnny
By Joseph A. Wulfsohn
Published 22 mins ago
Sen. Josh Hawley blasted Simon & Schuster Thursday over its
decision to cancel the publication of his upcoming book
following the violence that took place on Capitol Hill Wednesday.
Hawley, , R-Mo., one of the GOP lawmakers who helped lead
objections to the count of Electoral College votes, has been
slammed by critics after a pro-Trump mob stormed into the
Capitol building and interrupted both houses of Congress.
After Wednesday's riot, the publishing giant scrapped the
planned June release of his forthcoming book, "The Tyranny of
"We did not come to this decision lightly," Simon & Schuster
said on Thursday in a statement to The New York Times. "As a
publisher, it will always be our mission to amplify a variety
of voices and viewpoints. At the same time we take seriously
our larger public responsibility as citizens, and cannot
support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a
Simon & Shuster did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News.
Hawley fired back at the "woke mob" in a statement on Twitter,
Hawley's office provided the same statement to Fox News when
reached for comment.
"This could not be more Orwellian," Hawley wrote. "Simon &
Shuster is canceling my contract because I was representing my
constituents, leading a debate on the Senate floor on voter
integrity, which they have now decided to redefine as
Hawley said that his disagreement with the publishing house
was not a mere contract dispute.
"It's a direct assault on the First Amendment," Hawley wrote.
"Only approved speech can now be published. This is the Left
looking to cancel everyone they don't approve of. I will fight
this cancel culture with everything I have. We'll see you in
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Regretably the First Amendment appears to be under attack from all
sides. Damned well, today. Just damned, tomorrow? Repeal 230, don't
repeal 230. Criminalize hate speech? NY Times, Richard Stengel --
Yes. Washington Post, James Kirchick -- No. Current Supreme
Court, No. Packed Court? UN hate speech Resolution 16/18, adopted
or not? etc.
Repealing section 230 is not an attack on the first amendment, it is
an attack on Twitter and Facebook. They have managed to piss off the
right and the left and they will pay the price.
The government telling or compelling private parties to make this or
that decision regarding the speech content of their business is always
an attack on the First Amendment. Government can deliver the message
directly or through the back door, like the Dems tried to do with talk
radio and their Fairness Doctrine. Let's face it, your desire to
repeal 230 is compelled by a desire to influence content. If Twitter
was flooded wall to wall with Trump support messages, would we be
having this conversation?
The government passed 230, they can repeal it.
The government passed 230 to enable a new avenue of speech. That done,
it is what it is. To repeal it would be an independent act for the
express purpose of eliminating that new avenue of speech -- something
that the courts would no doubt be asked to look at.
I seriously doubt it (at best for your position, a case will be brought
and quickly disposed of).
The First Amendment does not require the government to provide special
liability for social media, the statute that created those protections
does not change the First Amendment, and therefore repealing those
protections cannot violate the First Amendment.
I am obviously not a lawyer, but I would argue that the First
Amendment concerns speech and does not require a thousand different
laws regarding corporations, labor, taxation, working conditions,
Internet, etc., and yet those laws are necessary, exist, and are
constantly subject to change and repeal. However the repeal of Section
230 is different in that it could reasonably be argued that the repeal
had an ulterior motive -- it would put Twitter, and others, out of
business and therefore silence the speech of those who posted there. A
related argument (in reverse) was what ultimately supported the end of
the Fairness Doctrine, a doctrine designed to stifle speech ...
"The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by
the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting
v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not
violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned
that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's
constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later,
without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in
another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and
limits the variety of public debate"(Miami Herald Publishing Co. v.
Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the
scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the
doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of
Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's
action in 1987."
In short, like it or not Section 230 exists. Repealing it would stifle
speech across the Internet.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
If you were correct, then when Congress funded abortions, it would have
been unconstitutional for them to repeal that funding. That too makes no
Sorry, you lost me on that one. I see no similarity. The answer to
twitter should be competition. If Trump is booted from Twitter, there
are alternatives. Here's one of several ...