Here are the three prongs used to determine if an entity is covered under the law.
The defendant must be a “provider or user” of an “interactive computer service.”
The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the “publisher or speaker” of the harmful information at issue.
The information must be “provided by another information content provider,” i.e., the defendant must not be the “information content provider” of the harmful information at issue.
This may help you understand the law and why people versed in the law believe companies such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter should no longer be covered under the law. I side with those who believe this although I am not an attorney.
It’s news to me that terms of service negate and override federal law. Hell, I’m going to draw up terms of service now for my clients that state any income they pay me need not be reported to the IRS on a 1099. No more taxes for me.
Why don’t you ask CNN how much they paid the kid from the Covington hoax for defaming him? News organizations, whether in the verbal or printed form, can absolutely be sued for defamation. It’s buffoonery to suggest otherwise.
Fact checking what someone says or writes, whether true or false, is undeniably editorializing.
How did I miss this? I didn’t realize I was speaking to an expert.
I’ve gotten so accustomed to the sudden influx of epidemiologists and virologists lately, I’ve forgotten about all of the lawyers out there who studied independently.
And that attorney is? He could be an ambulance chaser for all we know. But, it came from this:
You need a law degree to see how that is wrong? If this forum bans someone for racist posts, is it endorsing non-racist speech? It’s not even a legal question but a logical one.
Where have I claimed Twitter did in fact defame anyone? You and thunderbolt are tilting at windmills. I postulated certain entities are acting in a manner that removes their protection under the law and therefore have opened themselves up to legal ramifications they previously did not face. Plenty of attorneys believe the same. My legal expertise, such that it is, is more on the criminal rather than the civil arena, so perhaps the courts will rule after all that private Ministry’s of Truth should in fact be afforded legal governmental protection. Be a great way to subvert the 1st Amendment don’t ya think?
Okay you have identified one complete condition and one very nebulous concept.
Is the poster the President? If so, fact check. That much is clear.
So option 1 is to ban, if possible?
If banning is impossible, the condition is to give people the option and ability to fact check. That part is clear, but I’m not sure what you mean by that.
If I create a Twitter account, should I be able to request a fact check on a Xi Jinping tweet and get one done to the same level of scrutiny given to the President?
When you’ve clarified that, can you explain how, exactly, you give someone fact-checking ability? Wouldn’t that require some level of training?
We’re starting to shape out a process now. What are the other conditions you think a fact check is necessary?
We’re right back to the beginning. Can you explain, in logical terms, a coherent condition or set of conditions under which a fact check would be done as a public service?
The idea that we still have people who think his lies and behaviors aren’t that big a deal are mind boggling to me. If this was a one time thing we could ignore it, everyone slips up and says things they don’t mean. With Trump this doesn’t even register as surprising. Just another long list of indefensible things he says. That will be hand waved away like all the rest.
I wouldn’t call this example censorship, but why the need to change the subject, Mr. Logic? If it is so logical, it should be easy for you to explain. Just a few posts ago this was a matter of simple logic, easily understood without a law degree.
