Do you still hold the quaint notion that courts are not politicized?I'm sure that you found the opinions compelling. Fortunately for all of us, judges tend to understand the law (and history) better than you do.
Do you still hold the quaint notion that courts are not politicized?I'm sure that you found the opinions compelling. Fortunately for all of us, judges tend to understand the law (and history) better than you do.
I think that Thomas, Sotomayor, and all the others in between would agree that 1A guarantees that site owners can choose what is published on their sites and that administrative rules and/or legislation can't change that.Do you still hold the quaint notion that courts are not politicized?
Well, I've decided to get the vaccine. Going tomorrow afternoon. Went to my doc of 35+ years and he was really on me about it today. He's pretty concerned about the Delta variant. I'm getting the Pfizer. Our youngest granddaughter is quarantining at our house right now because her dad and other grandma both have Covid. Between that and my doc, it finally convinced me.
Then you're a lousy shot. I'm a pretty big target! (Yeah, he was on me about losing weight too.)I'll miss you.
Then you're a lousy shot. I'm a pretty big target! (Yeah, he was on me about losing weight too.)
I hope it all goes smooth for you, like it did for me. I think the Pfizer is the best one, even better than the Moderna I got. Keep us posted about your experiences.Well, I've decided to get the vaccine. Going tomorrow afternoon. Went to my doc of 35+ years and he was really on me about it today. He's pretty concerned about the Delta variant. I'm getting the Pfizer. Our youngest granddaughter is quarantining at our house right now because her dad and other grandma both have Covid. Between that and my doc, it finally convinced me.
I think that Thomas, Sotomayor, and all the others in between would agree that 1A guarantees that site owners can choose what is published on their sites and that administrative rules and/or legislation can't change that.
NYT is responsible for anything they write. NYT is not responsible for anything that some random person writes in the comments.Oh yes it can, if they want liability protection from section 230. Otherwise they are no different the NYT, and are responsible for everything published on their site. That was how it was when it began but through power, money and political connections they have perverted the original intent.
So you are correct that they can choose what is published if they are a publisher, if they host an open forum then they cannot choose...
NYT is responsible for anything they write. NYT is not responsible for anything that some random person writes in the comments.
No law or regulation compels any private entity to host any speech that they don't want to. There are no "open forums" in private spaces. An act of Congress can't undo the protections of the First Amendment.
A single entity can be both a publisher and a platform; nearly every news/info site is. Any article that allows third-party comments is functioning in both roles, from NYT to Fox News to Ammoland. The article is publisher content, and the comments are platform content. Platforms can be moderated and still have liability protections re: third-party content (comments, user posts, etc.).
I was talking with a guy tonight - strong, guy, fit and healthy - spent over a week in the hospital for double pneumonia brought on from COVID19. For a while there they weren't sure he would pull through.DoggyMama just had me sign her up too.
This checks out.
That is amazing, a brazen violation of the First Amendment, and naked compliance to the groupthink media machine. I studied Journalism at IU, and over the last 20 years have witnessed what can only be called the death of Journalism, as all good and valid reporting has been branded as "conspiracy theory." People don't read anymore, they tweet, like and follow ... this is the Brave New World we've feared for decades.
Wait. What's really there to scoff at? The main idea in that post isn't really what you're complaining about. People sometimes start believing colloquial speech literally. I don't know if he believes that a private company banning speech really violates the constitution. Obviously the constitution limits government not private business. But that's not really what the post was about. It violates the idea of free speech. Never in the internet age have we had this level of bias in the public square where all the major social media sites work vigorously together to control conversation to this degree. That you only complain about him invoking the 1A makes me wonder if you're trying to disparage the idea of the post by conflating one part that isn't even the main idea.You studied journalism, yet you still think that Reddit can violate the First Amendment? Seriously?
There you go again! Just can't help yourself. Another post besmirching a source without ANYTHING to go on.
But you quote Pravda, oops, NPR as if they are pure as the driven snow.
People colloquially widen topics to include peripheral issues. Being censored on reddit is related to journalists censoring ideas that don't fit the story they want told.And to think that Reddit is even close to journalism...
Journalism isn't dying because good journalism is labeled conspiratorial, but because people are accepting junk articles full of conspiracies and biased reporting.
Does "studied journalism" mean took an elective? Because then I studied economy at Purdue, but the only thing I remember is what building that class was in twenty years ago.
INGO conduct is moderated. Content is not, other than generally "family friendly". The 230 protections mean that INGO can't get sued for what other people post (except for what's illegal). If you post claiming that HCQ cures the herpes, a lawsuit against INGO is not gonna work. But, if INGO claims 230 protections, and it bans people from saying Ivermectin cures the herpes, but allows people to say HCQ cures it, then the 230 protections don't apply.
Do you think that INGO moderation is illegal?
There's already precedence on 230 protections. If you moderate content, you're a publisher and therefor 230 protections won't help you if someone sues you. You can moderate behavior. You can't censor content. Banning someone for calling someone a ************ isn't censorship.I think that Thomas, Sotomayor, and all the others in between would agree that 1A guarantees that site owners can choose what is published on their sites and that administrative rules and/or legislation can't change that.