https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265985660898459655
( twitter | raw text )
The confusion is understandable, because lots of irresponsible commentators (not just Trumpists) have invested a lot of energy into misrepresenting CDA 230. The baseline (pre-230) was that online platforms couldn’t be held liable for transmitting illegal content (similar to how the phone company isn’t liable for transmitting a threat or a slander over a phone call). However, one case held that, by moderating offensive posts, a platform could become liable for all posts. So if you delete porn, you can be liable for not also deleting defamatory posts. That’s a terrible rule, so CDA 230 provides that removing objectionable content can’t be a basis for liability for any content provided by someone else. The implicit threat here is that if Twitter doesn’t let the Nazis post, they would be liable for any unlawful content posted by anyone because the Trump admin will magic away CDA 230 through bad faith interpretation.
4 Likes
Huber was appointed by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page and connections between the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One, starting in November 2017.[8]
I dunno. What happen to him?
1 Like
He’s bringing back the Fairness Doctrine?
BeBest
What pisses me off more than anything about law world is its insistence on indulging bad faith and basically operating in total denial of obvious facts.
Sure, let’s spend 3 hours of oral arguments pretending that the real issue at play in the tax returns case is whether complying will take so much of Trumps precious time that he will no longer be able to manage the country. Hey assholes, he spends all day rage tweeting and snorting drugs, I think he can manage. But more importantly, the whole charade ignores that he’s fighting tooth and nail because he’s a god damn criminal. Not one person alive anywhere thinks Donald Trump gives a shit about anything but Donald Trump.
7 Likes
Well it is a profession based on the concept of arguing both sides of a dispute independent of the relative strengths of the cases. They are trained to advocate for a position, whether they believe in it or not. That’s not an approach that leads you to consider whether the other side is arguing in good faith.
1 Like
I get the lawyers need to do that. The judges do not have to entertain obviously pretextual bullshit.
2 Likes
Yes, good point. I think judges often fall in the category of being too old to recognize that their approach to things that worked 25 years ago is out of date.
LOL, fuck off Jack. “We will point out incorrect or disputed information… about this one random, narrowly-defined topic.”
1 Like
Appreciate your word salad, Jack. Fuck you!
1 Like
Fuck off, you piece of shit. Your platform provides a massive net negative for society, it should be abolished.
1 Like
So many different viewpoints!
4 Likes
How far away are we from oral arguments before the SCOTUS on the subject of whether objective facts exist?
1 Like
Paging that wirelessbro dude.
8 Likes
Hey Dan. How’s it going, dude?
lol Jack, the world is literally a worse place right now because of you dickhead
1 Like