Investment Chat Board Lawsuits Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: sense who wrote (12355)	2/19/2021 1:12:46 PM
From: SI Dave	3 Recommendations Recommended By FBN MarCom Jeffrey S. Mitchell Rarebird Read Replies (2) of 12465

tl;dr. Just skimmed. What is not recognized by many that most of "social media's" defenses/immunities derive from the 1st Amendment or other applicable statutes. Section 230 doesn't expand or limit anyone's 1st Amendment rights. It merely gives the courts a fast track to dispense with frivolous litigation that doomed to fail anyway by means of a motion to dismiss. The only people that penalizes are plaintiff lawyers who convince their clients that frivolous lawsuits have a prayer of success. I was involved in one such action that went all the way to SCOTUS, even though the plaintiff's lawyer knew full well that it was doomed all the way back at the trial court level. His client had deep pockets, so it went through appeal, state supreme court and US Supreme court, and was summarily rejected at ever stage. The lawyers won; everyone else lost. Section 230 saves the courts from that waste of time and effort and saves tens of thousand of websites that host user-generated content from death via a thousand duckbites. It is the government and the government only that cannot infringe on 1A rights. Private property owners have no burden whatsoever to provide a platform for anyone's speech. They are not the government and are not government actors. The goal in section 230... to protect free speech and foster free exchange of information by limiting censorship.. That was not the intend of 230. It was intended to promote a diversity of platforms and to enhance the number of spaces where people could find or express their views. Want a platform that only talks about fresh water fishing and exclude all other discussion? Fine. Only liberal views? Fine. Only conservative views? Fine. Only pumping stocks? Fine. Only bashing stocks? Fine. It was also designed ti encourage but not require platforms to moderate content as they saw fit, to cater to their clients desires as they saw fit, without having to worry about frivolous litigation for choosing to moderate or note moderate their platforms. Don't take my word for it; look up what the 230 authors said then and now. Why is "the internet' any different than the telephone in determining limits to individuals right to express themselves ? Telcos are regulated utilities. That's an irrelevant comparison. The Supreme Court should eviscerate section 230... on that basis... that the Constitution does not intend, and does not empower Congress to grant, anyone an ability to selectively violate others rights without liability... Yet, they have done the exact opposite. Why? Because Congress didn't do anything of the kind since there is no violation of others rights occurring. That "right" does not exist in that circumstance.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next