1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • Does the notion of "harmful misinformation" essentially nullify the fir

    From S K@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 10 13:29:00 2022
    It is only private organizations like youtube and twitter that are doing it now - but what is to stop the government from getting into the act?

    If you want to say "the US has funded bioweapons labs in the Ukraine" they are now banning you on youtube etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Jul 10 20:52:07 2022
    It appears that S K <[email protected]> said:
    It is only private organizations like youtube and twitter that are doing it now - but what is to stop the government from
    getting into the act?

    The first amendment, of course, which in most cases forbids the government from limiting your speech

    If you want to say "the US has funded bioweapons labs in the Ukraine" they are now banning you on youtube etc.

    Who is "they"?

    Youtube is owned and run by Google, who is not the government.

    Both the first amendment and 47 USC 230 protect the right of any
    private entity, such as Google, not to say what they don't want to
    say. If the want to remove a Youtube video because your haircut is
    ugly, they can do that.
    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to John Levine on Mon Jul 11 06:52:01 2022
    "John Levine" wrote in message news:tafhop$1s1m$[email protected]...

    It appears that S K <[email protected]> said:
    It is only private organizations like youtube and twitter that are doing
    it now - but what is to stop the government from
    getting into the act?

    The first amendment, of course, which in most cases forbids the government >from limiting your speech

    If you want to say "the US has funded bioweapons labs in the Ukraine" they >>are now banning you on youtube etc.

    Who is "they"?

    Youtube is owned and run by Google, who is not the government.

    Both the first amendment and 47 USC 230 protect the right of any
    private entity, such as Google, not to say what they don't want to
    say. If the want to remove a Youtube video because your haircut is
    ugly, they can do that.

    And regardless of what private entities like Google choose to do, you can always go out and create your own website and post whatever comments you
    want.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to S K on Mon Jul 11 12:53:22 2022
    On 7/10/2022 1:29 PM, S K wrote:
    It is only private organizations like youtube and twitter that are doing it now - but what is to stop the government from getting into the act?

    The First Amendment:
    Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
    press;

    As the courts have interpreted this, government can enact "time, place,
    and manner restrictions -- no sound trucks at 2AM, don't block people
    from getting into and out of their homes and driveways, etc. But these
    rules must be "viewpoint neutral": "bioweapons labs in the Ukraine" has
    the same free speech rights as "we have to do something about climate
    change" or "let's celebrate my son's 6th birthday."


    If you want to say "the US has funded bioweapons labs in the Ukraine" they are now banning you on youtube etc.

    Private entities like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Ebay, etc. can make
    their own rules: "my property, my rules". If you don't like those rules,
    you are free to go elsewhere, and there are plenty of
    Conservative-leaning websites (e.g.,infowars). Yeah, I know, it takes a
    fair amount of money to start a new social media site. But ya know,
    there's a lot of conservatives with a lot of money. Trump could take
    some of his billions and start one, if he cared about anything besides
    himself. Charles Koch could take some of his $58 billion, hire a bunch
    of programmers and designers, and launch a right-leaning (or "no holds
    barred") website.


    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Tue Jul 12 22:48:27 2022
    On 7/11/2022 12:53 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
    ... > Private entities like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Ebay, etc. can make their own rules: "my property, my rules". If you don't like those rules,
    you are free to go elsewhere, and there are plenty of
    Conservative-leaning websites (e.g.,infowars). Yeah, I know, it takes a
    fair amount of money to start a new social media site. But ya know,
    there's a lot of conservatives with a lot of money. Trump could take
    some of his billions and start one, if he cared about anything besides himself. Charles Koch could take some of his $58 billion, hire a bunch
    of programmers and designers, and launch a right-leaning (or "no holds barred") website.



    Trump did so.

    https://truthsocial.com/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Social

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)