Capt-jack Loc: Home

MAJOR Supreme Court Case Set For SUPREME COURT


We all like to live in a world where we can say what we feel is on our minds and not have to look like we are criminals over it.

The problem with that is that it seems that every form of media is controlled by some liberal that wants you to say that they want that too, but as long as you agree with them.

The whole thing of “be yourself, but just like everyone else”. Thankfully, we have reached a point where you can tell these social media companies that you don’t need them anymore. Maybe now, they will finally lighten up on this rampant censorship.

A tech censorship case that could have wide ramifications for the way the courts interpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has hit the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now decide whether or not to hear the case.

In October, Justice Clarence Thomas indicated that he believes the legal immunities of Section 230 to have been interpreted too broadly. The law gives tech companies wide-ranging protection from any legal consequences for censorship, allowing them to censor anything they consider “objectionable.”

“Many courts have construed the law broadly to confer sweeping immunity on some of the largest companies in the world,” wrote Justice Thomas.

This offers due process protections to the American citizens who, in an increasing number of cases, have seen years of work and investment on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google or YouTube suddenly erased by the tech titans.

As Breitbart News reported, the case, brought by Jason Fyk, owner of a v***l news page that was shut down by Facebook, argues that tech companies should be liable for censorship:

… the case focuses on subsection F(3) of the law, which concerns the definition of “information content provider.” The law defines an “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.”

In contrast to “interactive computer services,” “information content providers” are not protected by the liability shields of Section 230. Thus, Big Tech companies must prove that they are “interactive computer services” and not “information content providers” if they wish to be subject to the law’s protections, and thus retain their broad authority to censor users.

By engaging in preferential treatment towards certain types of content, including by funding content produced mainstream media organizations, Fyk’s case will argue that Facebook is “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet,” and thus an “information content provider” not subject to Section 230’s protections.


https://100percentfedup.com/breaking-facebook-censorship-case-set-for-supreme-court-docket-justice-thomas-claims-may-courts-have-construed-the-law-broadly/

PeterS

This is major. I mean without h**e speech and outright lies you guys don't have much going for you...and far be it from Facebook or some other media outlet to want you to comply with basis decorum...correct!

Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

Copy That
And then there's this SCOTUS Has there hands full, for sure. I am confident that the people's voice will be victorious. THAT'S AMERICA
To HELL With These T*****rs

American Vet

What is ‘basis decorum’?

Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

Again, go back and take a Real Good Look at Net Neutrality This is bigger than you.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

:::Spoiler Alert:::::
Trump lost the e******n Fair and Square!
Time for the Ball Gag and Straightjacket!

PeterS

Not starting every sentence by denigrating your opponent and not trying to pass off as fact a pack of lies. You know, basic stuff that a civilized society lives by...

American Vet

So you meant ‘basic’....okay.

Well, it’s called freedom of speech- realizing that is anathema to l*****t. You don’t like it then don’t read it. You might also pass on your thoughts on ‘basic decorum’ to a lot of the lefties here.

As for lies - then you should be able to show that what is posted is a lie. An example might be someone who posts there were no r**ts when Trump was elected - it took 10 seconds on DuckDuckGo to show there were.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Grugore

If I said what's on the tip of my tongue, I'd get suspended again. But you've heard it a million times already, so I don't have to say it. Besides, if it hasn't made a difference yet, it never will.

PeterS

And were there r**ts when Trump was elected? My ten-second search didn't turn up any...which brings us back to that t***h thing. For you conservatives, if you want to believe it then you seem to think that it's true. If you don't want to believe it, is when you are sure it's a lie. Now if you can show me there were r**ts, fine, but a protest isn't a r**t, and protests in the millions are the only thing I can find for Trump's e******n.

As for freedom of speech, when we insist on denigrating each other all chance of understanding each other and a reasoned debate falls flat on its face. And yes, the left can throw insults as good as anyone but we aren't raised on insults. We don't listen to the Rush Limbaughs of talk radio 24/7 who mold how we think and how we conduct ourselves in conversation with each other. Opinion "news" is indicative of the right and the left has nothing even remotely comparable.

For you conservatives, logical fallacies, starting with ad hominem attacks and advancing from there, are what you conservatives think constitute a rational debate. But there is nothing rational about it at all and anytime we live in a world of logical fallacies t***h from fiction completely disappears. So freedom of speech is one thing. When it destroys how we think, it is fully a different story altogether...

PeterS

Bigger than me? Why do you guys change the subject right in the middle of a discussion? As for net neutrality, we are talking about a concept that has been around for about 20 years. What ominous munchkin is standing behind my back?

American Vet

You might want to consider having someone teach you more about using search engines.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2147684/violence-erupts-across-the-us-as-pro-clinton-fans-r**t-after-donald-trumps-shock-e******n-win/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Oakland_r**ts

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-e******n-2016-protesters-take-to-the-streets-after-donald-trumps-astonishing-victory/news-story/4dbed549225ce642ba307a05d570f934

Now, what about that ‘t***h’ thing?

PeterS

It's time for some intellectual honesty. Trump has had his opportunity to challenge the e******n and every case of fraud that he's brought up has fallen flat on its face. Enough is enough. Time for Biden to get his t***sition into full gear so he can hit the ground running. We elected someone who knows what it means to be president. We owe him every opportunity to do his job!

American Vet

Did democrats and the MSM give President Trump ‘every opportunity to do his job’?