Category: Censorship

Social Media and Section 230

Post by Legal_Latino

My legal thesis in law school was actually on Section 230 of the CDA, the very law the executive order is affecting. I wanted to include some more information to clarify some fake news I’ve been hearing online. Plus, a lot of pedes have been asking questions on the CDA. Basically here is a detailed explanation for some of you more interested pedes:

A publisher is an entity that controls the content that they present to a user—Think of CNN. Because they are in control of the content being presented (like a news article), they are legally responsible for it and any fake news that they publish (defamation for example), even if they hire someone else to write it. The less control they exert over the content they publish, the less likely they will be considered a publisher (and less likely to be held responsible for the content).

In 1996 Congress passed the CDA which includes Section 230. Section 230 was passed for two reasons, to stop the spread of pornography on the internet and at the same time to allow other speech to live freely.

Section 230 basically stated that any internet platform which hosts other users is not responsible for the content posted by those users (and therefore not considered a publisher). So, if a user were to post leaked naked pictures on Facebook, then Facebook could not be held jointly liable for hosting those pictures EVEN IF THEY DID NOT REMOVE THE PICTURES. The intent by congress was that if we protect these companies from liability from users then they will avoid taking action by limiting and censoring posts and as such, speech.

However, Section 230 contains a clause which has been the subject of a lot of legal debate. 230(c)(2)(A) provides that even if a social media platform exerts control over material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable”, then it still cannot be considered a publisher (remember that exerting control over content usually makes you legally responsible for that content).

The problem is that the clause was almost unequivocally referring to violence and porn, but federal courts (who knows why) began interpreting “otherwise objectional” as anything that a platform finds offensive. As such, social media platforms were able to ban and censor speech just because they found it offensive. Thus, exerting control and still immune under the language of 230(c)(2)(A).

In addition to the vagueness of the term “otherwise objectionable”. Some promoters of free speech argued that 230(c)(2)(A) is an explicit condition/clause. In other words, a platform can ban things considered “obscene, lewd, etc…” without being defined as a publisher (exerting control) but as soon as they begin to exert control over content that does not meet these criteria explicitly listed, then they are risking moving into publisher territory and no longer immune from lawsuits based on the content posted on their website.

Trump’s executive order is attempting to clarify the interpretation of the law and the enforcement of the law. The executive order is basically saying, if you begin to ban or control content that is not under the list in 230(c)(2)(A) then you’re going to be considered a publisher. So social media companies have a choice, they can back off and allow free public discourse to take place on the internet, all the while enjoying their (very generous) lawsuit immunity, or they can exercise their free speech rights of association and ban everything to hell, but then they no longer have the immunity.

For those of you that want to read my 35-page thesis on the topic (Written Summer of 2019):

Having It Both Ways- The CDA and Free Speech

 

VIMEO Deletes Videos Exposing QinetiQ Group

video deleted

George Tenet (C.I.A) and Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani (Joint Chiefs) even arranged for QinetiQ to get information technology contracts to track all U.S. Army rolling, shipping and flying assets worldwide

ALERT: Evidently, U.S. military & intelligence is controlled by Britain

.

Please download backups of this video for safekeeping on your computer. It discusses important new facts previously lost to history. Here are alternative sources:

https://aim4truthblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/2020-02-29-her-royal-bioweapon-exposed-by-gabriel-mckibben-american-intelligence-media-americans-for-innovation-feb-29-2020.mp4

https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/2020-02-29-Her-Royal-Bioweapon-Exposed-by-Gabriel-McKibben-American-Intelligence-Media-Americans-for-Innovation-Feb-29-2020.mp4

https://aim4truthblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/doug-and-mike-2-28-20.mp3

Full story:

https://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2020/02/coronavirus-uncovers-rothschild-lord.html

https://tinyurl.com/roxpeqq

Head of Burisma Indicted – Hunter Biden Named

UPDATE November 23, 2019. We did further research on these articles and have found that they are sophisticated propaganda coming from Reuters and Associated Press. We were punked, but now set the record straight. This is an important learning opportunity for AIM patriots everywhere. Bottom line – distrust EVERYTHING that comes from Reuters and AP.

We were punked by fake news, but set the record straight!

.


Below is our original post:

hunter biden conspiracy.JPGhunter biden ukkraine.JPG

.

Click the headline links to read the articles beneath:

MPs demand Zelensky, Trump investigate suspicion of U.S.-Ukraine corruption involving $7.4 bln

Leaked Ukrainian Indictment Claims $7.4 Billion Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million

Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on Thursday said he might force a vote to bring in 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son in as a witness to the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump.

Nunes Plans To Subpoena Whistleblower, Hunter Biden

Joe Biden’s son and his partners received $16.5 million from Burisma — Ukrainian MP

bnl news tweet.JPGbnl twitter suspended.JPGburisma tweet.JPGPropaganda NBC quickly came out with this:

As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media

Enjoy our Hunter Biden meme slideshow and share your favorites

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Court Docs: DNA Test Confirms Hunter Biden as Father of Arkansas Baby

And look at another corrupt Ukraine son:

VIDEO: Pelosi’s Son’s Ex-Girlfriend Claims Forced Abortion, Abuse, Weaponizing CPS, Massive Fraud

sons to ukraine.jpg

 

.

Copyright Office to Regulate Memes with Lawfare

cat in chair.JPG

How Those Memes You Just Posted Could Soon Cost You $30,000

.

Translation by a patriot commentor:

Allow me to paint a picture for you:
You post a meme making fun of a Democrat politician or “woke” institution.

They contact the new “Copyright Enforcement Board” created by this law to report your meme, and give the wrong defendant address on purpose.

The “Copyright Enforcement Board” sends out a letter to the wrong address telling you you’re being subjected to fines w/o judicial review unless you “opt out”.

You know nothing until you’re blind-sided and bankrupted with $30,000 in fines PER VIEW of the meme you posted months later, with zero judicial recourse, the feds are just there to auction off everything you own.

.

AIM notation: And don’t forget who controls the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office – none other than British SERCO. These are Crown Agents using unconstitutional laws to suppress American free speech.

Bottom line:  The old royal lizard b*tch is trying to shut up Americans. Not goin’ happen on our watch!

queen elizabeth overthrow

.

And remember who works in the Copyright office?

DEATH OF FREE SPEECH ON THE INTERNET

.

michael Ohr at desk

.

Michael’s Mommy and Daddy pictured below with their good friend Crown prosecutor Alison Saunders at their infamous dinner meeting held at the Ohr’s four days before Robert Hannigan came over from GCHQ and wiretapped Trump Towers with the assistance of traitor John Brennan.

Saunders dinner ohrs giorgio

.