Discussion:
Hawley blasts 'woke mob' at Simon & Schuster after cancelling his book
Add Reply
Johnny
2021-01-08 01:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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 Big Tech."

"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 dangerous threat."

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 sedition."

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 court."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-08 04:09:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
El Castor
2021-01-08 07:24:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-08 16:36:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
El Castor
2021-01-08 18:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-08 19:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
I'm not following the relevance to Hawley.
El Castor
2021-01-08 19:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
I'm not following the relevance to Hawley.
Unfortunately, opinions about what the First Amendment does or does
not say, mean, imply, or require seem to vary by the hour. What Hawley
does or does not know may depend on which side of the bed he got out
of this morning.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-08 20:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
I'm not following the relevance to Hawley.
Unfortunately, opinions about what the First Amendment does or does
not say, mean, imply, or require seem to vary by the hour.
No.
Post by El Castor
What Hawley
does or does not know may depend on which side of the bed he got out
of this morning.
No. He knows the publisher pulling his book does not implicate the First
Amendment.
El Castor
2021-01-08 21:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
I'm not following the relevance to Hawley.
Unfortunately, opinions about what the First Amendment does or does
not say, mean, imply, or require seem to vary by the hour.
No.
Sorry if I am getting a little cynical about this. I share your
opinion, but I am dismayed by how readily various "authorities" and
politicians just pull their own interpretation out of a hat. A member
of the Biden administration is on record that we need hate speech
laws. Your opinion (and mine) is simply ignored or rejected by
"experts" with a political axe to grind.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What Hawley
does or does not know may depend on which side of the bed he got out
of this morning.
No. He knows the publisher pulling his book does not implicate the First
Amendment.
islander
2021-01-09 00:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
I'm not following the relevance to Hawley.
Unfortunately, opinions about what the First Amendment does or does
not say, mean, imply, or require seem to vary by the hour.
No.
Sorry if I am getting a little cynical about this. I share your
opinion, but I am dismayed by how readily various "authorities" and
politicians just pull their own interpretation out of a hat. A member
of the Biden administration is on record that we need hate speech
laws. Your opinion (and mine) is simply ignored or rejected by
"experts" with a political axe to grind.
Cite? Biden does not yet have an administration.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What Hawley
does or does not know may depend on which side of the bed he got out
of this morning.
No. He knows the publisher pulling his book does not implicate the First
Amendment.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-09 00:52:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
I'm not following the relevance to Hawley.
Unfortunately, opinions about what the First Amendment does or does
not say, mean, imply, or require seem to vary by the hour.
No.
Sorry if I am getting a little cynical about this. I share your
opinion, but I am dismayed by how readily various "authorities" and
politicians just pull their own interpretation out of a hat. A member
of the Biden administration is on record that we need hate speech
laws. Your opinion (and mine) is simply ignored or rejected by
"experts" with a political axe to grind.
Cite?  Biden does not yet have an administration.
It's Richard Stengel and he is a member of the transition team (not yet
a member of the administration). Here is his take on hate speech:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/
El Castor
2021-01-09 01:42:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
I'm not following the relevance to Hawley.
Unfortunately, opinions about what the First Amendment does or does
not say, mean, imply, or require seem to vary by the hour.
No.
Sorry if I am getting a little cynical about this. I share your
opinion, but I am dismayed by how readily various "authorities" and
politicians just pull their own interpretation out of a hat. A member
of the Biden administration is on record that we need hate speech
laws. Your opinion (and mine) is simply ignored or rejected by
"experts" with a political axe to grind.
Cite? Biden does not yet have an administration.
I was referring to his transition administration, although Richard
Stengel, the gentleman in question, will almost certainly remain in
his staff.

"Why America needs a hate speech law"
Richard Stengel -- Oct 29, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/

"Richard Stengel is the Biden transition “Team Lead” for the US Agency
for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice
of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty."
https://nypost.com/2020/11/13/joe-biden-transition-official-wrote-op-ed-against-free-speech/
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What Hawley
does or does not know may depend on which side of the bed he got out
of this morning.
No. He knows the publisher pulling his book does not implicate the First
Amendment.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-09 00:50:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
I'm not following the relevance to Hawley.
Unfortunately, opinions about what the First Amendment does or does
not say, mean, imply, or require seem to vary by the hour.
No.
Sorry if I am getting a little cynical about this. I share your
opinion, but I am dismayed by how readily various "authorities" and
politicians just pull their own interpretation out of a hat. A member
of the Biden administration is on record that we need hate speech
laws. Your opinion (and mine) is simply ignored or rejected by
"experts" with a political axe to grind.
Stengel was making an honest argument for why current doctrine is wrong
(You and I agree current doctrine is not wrong). In contrast, Hawley is
not making an argument to change current doctrine. He is instead simply
whining while falsely claiming current doctrine protects him from not
being published.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
What Hawley
does or does not know may depend on which side of the bed he got out
of this morning.
No. He knows the publisher pulling his book does not implicate the First
Amendment.
Johnny
2021-01-08 21:09:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 10:16:20 -0800
Post by El Castor
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
Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
El Castor
2021-01-09 01:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 10:16:20 -0800
Post by El Castor
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
Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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?
Johnny
2021-01-09 01:16:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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
sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.
El Castor
2021-01-09 06:28:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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
sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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. Meanwhile, if you
don't like, don't use it. BTW -- here's a question you haven't dealt
with. If Twitter, in your opinion, favored Trump and your side of the
aisle would you still be demanding that 230 be repealed?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-09 16:16:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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
sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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.

If you were correct, then when Congress funded abortions, it would have
been unconstitutional for them to repeal that funding. That too makes no
sense.
El Castor
2021-01-09 20:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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
sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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."
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair

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
sense.
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 ...
https://parler.com/auth/access
Johnny
2021-01-09 22:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 12:18:27 -0800
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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."
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair
In short, like it or not Section 230 exists. Repealing it would stifle
speech across the Internet.
It wouldn't stifle free speech. Twitter doesn't allow free speech, the
subscribers can only say what Twitter will allow.

Repealing 230 would restore free speech across the Internet.
El Castor
2021-01-10 06:40:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 12:18:27 -0800
Post by El Castor
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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."
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair
In short, like it or not Section 230 exists. Repealing it would stifle
speech across the Internet.
It wouldn't stifle free speech. Twitter doesn't allow free speech, the
subscribers can only say what Twitter will allow.
Without 230 Twitter, Quora, Facebook, and the like, (possibly
including Google and even ISPs) would be treated like publishers and
potentially sued for their user's posts. Who would want to be in a
business in which they were exposed to endless lawsuits?

"Section 230 is credited by many as the “twenty-six words that created
the internet.”
https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/

Fox, CNN, NY Times, and other publishers of news and commentaries can
pick and choose what they will and won't air and print. I'm sure you
don't hold the NY Times and CNN in high regard and neither do I.
Should they be regulated by the government -- required to publish and
broadcast only fair and balanced news and commentary?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-10 03:59:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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 "reverse" part is the key difference in the analysis.

If Section 230 can't be repealed because of the First Amendment, then it
must be required by the First Amendment in the first place. The First
Amendment does not require Section 230, and therefore does not prevent
its repeal.

In contrast, we don't ask whether the Fairness Doctrine can't be
repealed because of the First Amendment. We ask *must* it be repealed by
The First Amendment. That's a completely different analysis.
Post by El Castor
"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."
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair
In short, like it or not Section 230 exists. Repealing it would stifle
speech across the Internet.
Section 230 subsidizes (by providing liability protection) speech (not
unlike the funding of abortions subsidizes abortions). While the
government cannot generally stifle speech (or prevent abortions), it is
under no obligation to subsidize them.
Post by El Castor
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
sense.
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 ...
https://parler.com/auth/access
El Castor
2021-01-10 07:14:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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 "reverse" part is the key difference in the analysis.
If Section 230 can't be repealed because of the First Amendment, then it
must be required by the First Amendment in the first place. The First
Amendment does not require Section 230, and therefore does not prevent
its repeal.
In contrast, we don't ask whether the Fairness Doctrine can't be
repealed because of the First Amendment. We ask *must* it be repealed by
The First Amendment. That's a completely different analysis.
Post by El Castor
"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."
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair
In short, like it or not Section 230 exists. Repealing it would stifle
speech across the Internet.
Section 230 subsidizes (by providing liability protection) speech (not
unlike the funding of abortions subsidizes abortions). While the
government cannot generally stifle speech (or prevent abortions), it is
under no obligation to subsidize them.
230 doesn't subsidize, it makes possible web sites like Facebook,
Quora, Twitter, The Volokh Conspiracy, and I suppose countless others,
perhaps including UseNet. I've even read that it protects ISPs. It is
commonly credited with being "The 26 Words That Created The Internet".

For God's sake there is even a book on the subject! You might want to
read it.

"The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet
by Jeff Kosseff"
"Did you know that these twenty-six words are responsible for much of
America's multibillion-dollar online industry? What we can and cannot
write, say, and do online is based on just one law-a law that protects
online services from lawsuits based on user content. Jeff Kosseff
exposes the workings of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
which has lived mostly in the shadows since its enshrinement in 1996.
Because many segments of American society now exist largely online,
Kosseff argues that we need to understand and pay attention to what
Section 230 really means and how it affects what we like, share, and
comment upon every day.
The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet tells the story of the
institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute."
https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Internet/dp/1501714414

Perhaps those 26 words deserve a VERY thoughtful re-examination, but
certainly not an outright repeal.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
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
sense.
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 ...
https://parler.com/auth/access
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-10 15:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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 "reverse" part is the key difference in the analysis.
If Section 230 can't be repealed because of the First Amendment, then it
must be required by the First Amendment in the first place. The First
Amendment does not require Section 230, and therefore does not prevent
its repeal.
In contrast, we don't ask whether the Fairness Doctrine can't be
repealed because of the First Amendment. We ask *must* it be repealed by
The First Amendment. That's a completely different analysis.
Post by El Castor
"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."
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair
In short, like it or not Section 230 exists. Repealing it would stifle
speech across the Internet.
Section 230 subsidizes (by providing liability protection) speech (not
unlike the funding of abortions subsidizes abortions). While the
government cannot generally stifle speech (or prevent abortions), it is
under no obligation to subsidize them.
230 doesn't subsidize, it makes possible web sites like Facebook,
Quora, Twitter, The Volokh Conspiracy, and I suppose countless others,
perhaps including UseNet. I've even read that it protects ISPs. It is
commonly credited with being "The 26 Words That Created The Internet".
"Make possible" is a subsidy (a subsidy need not be financial). The
First Amendment does not *require* Congress to "make possible" Facebook,
et al.
Post by El Castor
For God's sake there is even a book on the subject! You might want to
read it.
"The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet
by Jeff Kosseff"
"Did you know that these twenty-six words are responsible for much of
America's multibillion-dollar online industry? What we can and cannot
write, say, and do online is based on just one law-a law that protects
online services from lawsuits based on user content. Jeff Kosseff
exposes the workings of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
which has lived mostly in the shadows since its enshrinement in 1996.
Because many segments of American society now exist largely online,
Kosseff argues that we need to understand and pay attention to what
Section 230 really means and how it affects what we like, share, and
comment upon every day.
The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet tells the story of the
institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute."
https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Internet/dp/1501714414
Perhaps those 26 words deserve a VERY thoughtful re-examination, but
certainly not an outright repeal.
I oppose repeal. I am only pointing out such a repeal is permitted by
the First Amendment.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
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
sense.
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 ...
https://parler.com/auth/access
El Castor
2021-01-10 20:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 07:51:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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 "reverse" part is the key difference in the analysis.
If Section 230 can't be repealed because of the First Amendment, then it
must be required by the First Amendment in the first place. The First
Amendment does not require Section 230, and therefore does not prevent
its repeal.
In contrast, we don't ask whether the Fairness Doctrine can't be
repealed because of the First Amendment. We ask *must* it be repealed by
The First Amendment. That's a completely different analysis.
Post by El Castor
"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."
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair
In short, like it or not Section 230 exists. Repealing it would stifle
speech across the Internet.
Section 230 subsidizes (by providing liability protection) speech (not
unlike the funding of abortions subsidizes abortions). While the
government cannot generally stifle speech (or prevent abortions), it is
under no obligation to subsidize them.
230 doesn't subsidize, it makes possible web sites like Facebook,
Quora, Twitter, The Volokh Conspiracy, and I suppose countless others,
perhaps including UseNet. I've even read that it protects ISPs. It is
commonly credited with being "The 26 Words That Created The Internet".
"Make possible" is a subsidy (a subsidy need not be financial). The
First Amendment does not *require* Congress to "make possible" Facebook,
et al.
Post by El Castor
For God's sake there is even a book on the subject! You might want to
read it.
"The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet
by Jeff Kosseff"
"Did you know that these twenty-six words are responsible for much of
America's multibillion-dollar online industry? What we can and cannot
write, say, and do online is based on just one law-a law that protects
online services from lawsuits based on user content. Jeff Kosseff
exposes the workings of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
which has lived mostly in the shadows since its enshrinement in 1996.
Because many segments of American society now exist largely online,
Kosseff argues that we need to understand and pay attention to what
Section 230 really means and how it affects what we like, share, and
comment upon every day.
The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet tells the story of the
institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute."
https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Internet/dp/1501714414
Perhaps those 26 words deserve a VERY thoughtful re-examination, but
certainly not an outright repeal.
I oppose repeal. I am only pointing out such a repeal is permitted by
the First Amendment.
And I'm only pointing out that the Court, in examining the Fairness
Doctrine "cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain
speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered". You
may not agree, but I believe that a repeal of 230 would unquestionably
restrain and even eliminate free speech, and not just for Twitter. In
any event, Biden got a lot of monetary support from Silicon Valley. I
doubt he would pull the rug out from under them by repealing 230.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
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
sense.
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 ...
https://parler.com/auth/access
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-10 20:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 07:51:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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
sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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 "reverse" part is the key difference in the analysis.
If Section 230 can't be repealed because of the First Amendment, then it
must be required by the First Amendment in the first place. The First
Amendment does not require Section 230, and therefore does not prevent
its repeal.
In contrast, we don't ask whether the Fairness Doctrine can't be
repealed because of the First Amendment. We ask *must* it be repealed by
The First Amendment. That's a completely different analysis.
Post by El Castor
"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."
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair
In short, like it or not Section 230 exists. Repealing it would stifle
speech across the Internet.
Section 230 subsidizes (by providing liability protection) speech (not
unlike the funding of abortions subsidizes abortions). While the
government cannot generally stifle speech (or prevent abortions), it is
under no obligation to subsidize them.
230 doesn't subsidize, it makes possible web sites like Facebook,
Quora, Twitter, The Volokh Conspiracy, and I suppose countless others,
perhaps including UseNet. I've even read that it protects ISPs. It is
commonly credited with being "The 26 Words That Created The Internet".
"Make possible" is a subsidy (a subsidy need not be financial). The
First Amendment does not *require* Congress to "make possible" Facebook,
et al.
Post by El Castor
For God's sake there is even a book on the subject! You might want to
read it.
"The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet
by Jeff Kosseff"
"Did you know that these twenty-six words are responsible for much of
America's multibillion-dollar online industry? What we can and cannot
write, say, and do online is based on just one law-a law that protects
online services from lawsuits based on user content. Jeff Kosseff
exposes the workings of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
which has lived mostly in the shadows since its enshrinement in 1996.
Because many segments of American society now exist largely online,
Kosseff argues that we need to understand and pay attention to what
Section 230 really means and how it affects what we like, share, and
comment upon every day.
The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet tells the story of the
institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute."
https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Internet/dp/1501714414
Perhaps those 26 words deserve a VERY thoughtful re-examination, but
certainly not an outright repeal.
I oppose repeal. I am only pointing out such a repeal is permitted by
the First Amendment.
And I'm only pointing out that the Court, in examining the Fairness
Doctrine "cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain
speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered". You
may not agree, but I believe that a repeal of 230 would unquestionably
restrain and even eliminate free speech, and not just for Twitter.
You still don't get the difference between the government suppressing
speech (the Fairness Doctrine) and choosing not to subsidize speech (a
repeal of Section 230).
El Castor
2021-01-11 07:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:57:40 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 07:51:19 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
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
Big Tech."
"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
dangerous threat."
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
sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the
First Amendment is not implicated.
Not yet.
Huh?
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 "reverse" part is the key difference in the analysis.
If Section 230 can't be repealed because of the First Amendment, then it
must be required by the First Amendment in the first place. The First
Amendment does not require Section 230, and therefore does not prevent
its repeal.
In contrast, we don't ask whether the Fairness Doctrine can't be
repealed because of the First Amendment. We ask *must* it be repealed by
The First Amendment. That's a completely different analysis.
Post by El Castor
"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."
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair
In short, like it or not Section 230 exists. Repealing it would stifle
speech across the Internet.
Section 230 subsidizes (by providing liability protection) speech (not
unlike the funding of abortions subsidizes abortions). While the
government cannot generally stifle speech (or prevent abortions), it is
under no obligation to subsidize them.
230 doesn't subsidize, it makes possible web sites like Facebook,
Quora, Twitter, The Volokh Conspiracy, and I suppose countless others,
perhaps including UseNet. I've even read that it protects ISPs. It is
commonly credited with being "The 26 Words That Created The Internet".
"Make possible" is a subsidy (a subsidy need not be financial). The
First Amendment does not *require* Congress to "make possible" Facebook,
et al.
Post by El Castor
For God's sake there is even a book on the subject! You might want to
read it.
"The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet
by Jeff Kosseff"
"Did you know that these twenty-six words are responsible for much of
America's multibillion-dollar online industry? What we can and cannot
write, say, and do online is based on just one law-a law that protects
online services from lawsuits based on user content. Jeff Kosseff
exposes the workings of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
which has lived mostly in the shadows since its enshrinement in 1996.
Because many segments of American society now exist largely online,
Kosseff argues that we need to understand and pay attention to what
Section 230 really means and how it affects what we like, share, and
comment upon every day.
The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet tells the story of the
institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute."
https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Internet/dp/1501714414
Perhaps those 26 words deserve a VERY thoughtful re-examination, but
certainly not an outright repeal.
I oppose repeal. I am only pointing out such a repeal is permitted by
the First Amendment.
And I'm only pointing out that the Court, in examining the Fairness
Doctrine "cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain
speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered". You
may not agree, but I believe that a repeal of 230 would unquestionably
restrain and even eliminate free speech, and not just for Twitter.
You still don't get the difference between the government suppressing
speech (the Fairness Doctrine) and choosing not to subsidize speech (a
repeal of Section 230).
No I don't. If 230 was repealed for the purpose of silencing speech,
presumably a particular kind of speech, in this case liberal and
anti-Trump, I believe that should or could pose a Constitutional
problem. The Fairness Doctrine was never about fairness. Its purpose
was to eliminate conservative speech on talk radio. There was little
or no market for liberal talk shows. If a station was required to
devote two hours to liberal talk to counter two lucrative hours of
Rush Limbaugh, the station would lose it's shirt -- so no choice but
to get rid of the political talk and replace it with something that
didn't trigger the Doctrine. Silence conservative talk. It was all
political, as the designers of Fairness well new. Trump wanted to
repeal 230 to force Twitter to rid itself of so many liberal posts
critical of him. Silence liberal tweets. Seems like exactly the same
issue to me. Legislation designed to silence a particular kind of
political speech.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-11 16:42:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:57:40 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You still don't get the difference between the government suppressing
speech (the Fairness Doctrine) and choosing not to subsidize speech (a
repeal of Section 230).
No I don't. If 230 was repealed for the purpose of silencing speech,
presumably a particular kind of speech, in this case liberal and
anti-Trump, I believe that should or could pose a Constitutional
problem.
It appears you believe that when Congress passes a law - that is not
required by the Constitution - which promotes speech, it can never
repeal that law. So for example, if Congress passes a law which opens
up the Capitol Rotunda as a public forum for speakers, you think it
cannot repeal the law to return the Rotunda to its previous status of
not being a public forum. That's crazy.
El Castor
2021-01-11 19:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:42:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:57:40 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You still don't get the difference between the government suppressing
speech (the Fairness Doctrine) and choosing not to subsidize speech (a
repeal of Section 230).
No I don't. If 230 was repealed for the purpose of silencing speech,
presumably a particular kind of speech, in this case liberal and
anti-Trump, I believe that should or could pose a Constitutional
problem.
It appears you believe that when Congress passes a law - that is not
required by the Constitution - which promotes speech, it can never
repeal that law.
Something like that.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
So for example, if Congress passes a law which opens
up the Capitol Rotunda as a public forum for speakers, you think it
cannot repeal the law to return the Rotunda to its previous status of
not being a public forum. That's crazy.
You've heard my argument, and I've heard yours. We both remain
unconvinced, Time to move on.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-11 19:55:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:42:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 12:57:40 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
You still don't get the difference between the government suppressing
speech (the Fairness Doctrine) and choosing not to subsidize speech (a
repeal of Section 230).
No I don't. If 230 was repealed for the purpose of silencing speech,
presumably a particular kind of speech, in this case liberal and
anti-Trump, I believe that should or could pose a Constitutional
problem.
It appears you believe that when Congress passes a law - that is not
required by the Constitution - which promotes speech, it can never
repeal that law.
Something like that.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
So for example, if Congress passes a law which opens
up the Capitol Rotunda as a public forum for speakers, you think it
cannot repeal the law to return the Rotunda to its previous status of
not being a public forum. That's crazy.
You've heard my argument, and I've heard yours. We both remain
unconvinced, Time to move on.
I just want to confirm you think Congress cannot repeal my hypothetical
law. If so, I rest my case.

Johnny
2021-01-08 16:40:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:09:40 -0800
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Since he is so well educated, maybe he knows more than you.

Why would he say it if he knows better?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-08 19:27:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:09:40 -0800
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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 court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Since he is so well educated, maybe he knows more than you.
Why would he say it if he knows better?
Politics.

See here for the correct (and 100% uncontroversial as Hawley knows) view
of the law:

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/08/cancel-culture-and-freedom/
Johnny
2021-01-08 21:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:27:46 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:09:40 -0800
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Since he is so well educated, maybe he knows more than you.
Why would he say it if he knows better?
Politics.
See here for the correct (and 100% uncontroversial as Hawley knows)
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/08/cancel-culture-and-freedom/
The man that wrote that thinks like you, and even if it's legal,
especially about removing monuments, and removing books from schools,
it's morally wrong. It's being done to pacify a small minority of the
population and ignoring the other 90 percent.

These liberal activists are causing the cancel culture. Most people
would live their lives happily never thinking of the problems these
people dig up, and it just happened recently. Those books and
monuments have existed for hundreds of years with no problems.
islander
2021-01-09 00:00:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:27:46 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:09:40 -0800
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Since he is so well educated, maybe he knows more than you.
Why would he say it if he knows better?
Politics.
See here for the correct (and 100% uncontroversial as Hawley knows)
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/08/cancel-culture-and-freedom/
The man that wrote that thinks like you, and even if it's legal,
especially about removing monuments, and removing books from schools,
it's morally wrong. It's being done to pacify a small minority of the
population and ignoring the other 90 percent.
These liberal activists are causing the cancel culture. Most people
would live their lives happily never thinking of the problems these
people dig up, and it just happened recently. Those books and
monuments have existed for hundreds of years with no problems.
Actually, most of the confederate monuments that are being removed to
more appropriate locations were erected during the Jim Crow years, less
than 100 years ago.
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-09 00:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:27:46 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:09:40 -0800
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 Big Tech."
"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 dangerous threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Since he is so well educated, maybe he knows more than you.
Why would he say it if he knows better?
Politics.
See here for the correct (and 100% uncontroversial as Hawley knows)
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/08/cancel-culture-and-freedom/
The man that wrote that thinks like you, and even if it's legal,
especially about removing monuments, and removing books from schools,
it's morally wrong. It's being done to pacify a small minority of the
population and ignoring the other 90 percent.
These liberal activists are causing the cancel culture. Most people
would live their lives happily never thinking of the problems these
people dig up, and it just happened recently. Those books and
monuments have existed for hundreds of years with no problems.
You want to cancel Twitter and Hawley's publisher.
Johnny
2021-01-09 01:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:53:54 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:27:46 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:09:40 -0800
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
Big Tech."
"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 dangerous
threat."
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 sedition."
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
court."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/josh-hawley-simon-shuster-woke-mob-tyranny-of-big-tech
Hawley is a Yale educated lawyer. He knows damned well the First
Amendment is not implicated.
Since he is so well educated, maybe he knows more than you.
Why would he say it if he knows better?
Politics.
See here for the correct (and 100% uncontroversial as Hawley knows)
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/08/cancel-culture-and-freedom/
The man that wrote that thinks like you, and even if it's legal,
especially about removing monuments, and removing books from
schools, it's morally wrong. It's being done to pacify a small
minority of the population and ignoring the other 90 percent.
These liberal activists are causing the cancel culture. Most people
would live their lives happily never thinking of the problems these
people dig up, and it just happened recently. Those books and
monuments have existed for hundreds of years with no problems.
You want to cancel Twitter and Hawley's publisher.
I don't care about Hawley's publisher, but I want to see Twitter and
Facebook shut down.
Loading...