It was a brilliant piece of legislation that gave everyone a soapbox...
That was true... the operative word in yours being WAS... as long as it WAS interpreted to means what it actually says...
Under the reading you just offered and defended... ?
Now you're saying that the REAL benefit of that brilliant piece of legislation is that it... allows media companies to take the soapbox away from anyone they don't like... ? Where do you see that written in between the lines of a law that protects ONLY companies that DON'T exercise editorial control... but operate as neutral conduits of others work ?
It is an obvious fraud... to claim that an immunity offered to non-publishers... applies to publishers only because they use the same technology. Fatuous... would be the right word... to describe the acceptance of that argument... by people who clearly know better... but seek a benefit from looking the other way ?
Explain to me, if you will... how you get from immunizing NON publishers in CDA230... to citing "examples of a publisher exercising editorial discretion"... being a proof of the immunity applying to that publisher ?
Publishers HAVE rights, of course.... what they don't have... is a right to be immunized for behaviors that are those of publishers. If you ARE a publisher... you have the liability... and are not immunized... under a law that intends to protect NON publishers ? This, at least, is pretty black and white.
But, if YOU are confused about that... that, in itself, is ample reason to re-write the law to ensure we eliminate your confusion...
And, then... of course... there's a WORLD of difference between exercising control over the words YOU use... in your exercise of editorial discretion... and your exercising control over the words OTHERS use...
"Editors"... don't have the power to limit OTHERS speech... ? The limit of their reach... is in controlling their own speech... within the confines of the limit of their own PUBLICATION... for which they own the liability.
Inside that set of limits they impose... they own it...
The modern "I'm not liable as a publisher" publishers using newer technology to publish... seek to avoid the liability that MUST apply to publishers... which fact, should, in itself, be a red flag. Why... does a publisher want to avoid being held accountable ? If they are not held accountable... what are the likely consequences? How and why does the choice of technology... differentiate between one publisher and another in terms of their liability for the SAME act... when users of the new technology perform EXACTLY the same function in editorial control ? You are liable if you put it on paper... but not if you publish electronically?
Yeah... that won't pass Constitutional muster...
A newspaper editor... might not publish your letter... but he isn't going to turn your phone off so that you can't communicate your ideas to others ? The phone company... unlike the newspaper... isn't conditioning the transmission of your messages... or providing you service... based on the content of your calls ? So, the phone company doesn't have to worry about liability tied to their actions... because they ARE a neutral provider of a conduit for communication.
CDA230 in the plain text... SAYS that as long as the technology is applied in the way the phone company does... it enables immunity from the liability a publisher would have... but it doesn't mean that if you behave like a newspaper editor instead of a phone company... if you are not content neutral in your provision of service... that you get to avoid the liability of editors like the phone company does.
From there... stretch the law on the basis of what is determined to be "offensive" ? Fatuousness, again.
That part of the law... as it is being applied now... will also fail a Constitutional test... because it is a simple fraud. That's true because its an obvious fraud in the use of the nouns... because the "editor" we're discussing isn't "editing" their own work... but is in fact a "censor"... who is "censoring" others work.
CDA 230 doesn't intend to immunize censorship... which is the exact opposite of your "brilliant piece of legislation that gave (note the telling use of past-tense) everyone a soapbox and megaphone" ?
The law does not intend... and does not say... that the "non-editors" immunity... actually empowers "editors" to reach across the technology to shut down others speech that they don't agree with...
So, in the news TODAY ?
Facebook testified in front of the Senate recently... with Dr. Evil hooking his little pinky and lying to the Senators while saying that Facebook DOES NOT shadow ban ?
Yeah... Right. Exactly like backpage were "pioneers of free speech"... not sex traffickers selling kidnapped children into sex slavery...
Twitter Censorship Confirmed: "Shadow Banning" Is Now Written Into The Platform's New Terms
|
