Discussion:
[OT] Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship
Add Reply
Ed Stasiak
2019-04-16 01:49:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019

Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is “in jeopardy”

In a new interview with Recode, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made some notable comments
on what by all accounts is the most important law underpinning the modern internet as we know it.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is as short as it is potent — and it’s worth
getting familiar with. It states “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a “gift” to tech companies that have
leaned heavily on the law to grow their business. That provision, providing tech platforms legal cover
for content created by their users, is what allowed services like Facebook, YouTube and many others
to swell into the massive companies they are today.

Pelosi continued:

“It is a gift to them and I don’t think that they are treating it with the respect that they should, and so
I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy… I do think that for the privilege of 230,
there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not out of the question that that could
be removed.”

Expect to hear a lot more about Section 230. In recent months, a handful of Republicans in Congress
have taken aim at the law. Section 230 is what’s between the lines in Devin Nunes’ recent lawsuit
accusing critics for defaming him on Twitter. It’s also the extremely consequential subtext beneath
conservative criticism that Twitter, Facebook and Google do not run “neutral” platforms.

While the idea of stripping away Section 230 is by no means synonymous with broader efforts to
regulate big tech, it _is_ the nuclear option. And when tech’s most massive companies behave badly,
it’s a reminder to some of them that their very existences hinge on 26 words that Congress giveth and
Congress can taketh away.

Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a fearsome cudgel against even tech’s
most seemingly untouchable companies. While it’s not clear what some potentially misguided lawmakers
would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi’s comments are a reminder that tech’s biggest
companies and users alike have everything to lose.
RichA
2019-04-16 02:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is “in jeopardy”
In a new interview with Recode, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made some notable comments
on what by all accounts is the most important law underpinning the modern internet as we know it.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is as short as it is potent — and it’s worth
getting familiar with. It states “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Fair use = dead under LEFT-WING VERMIN in the EU and U.S.
Shadow
2019-04-16 20:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is “in jeopardy”
(removed by RichA)
Post by Ed Stasiak
Expect to hear a lot more about Section 230. In recent months, a handful
of Republicans in Congress have taken aim at the law.
Fair use = dead under LEFT-WING VERMIN in the EU and U.S.
Try reading the FULL article next time. You make yourself
sound almost as foolish as you are.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
BTR1701
2019-04-16 02:10:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.

Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.

Without 230, Usenet might go back to being the only bastion of
uncensored speech left on the net.
FPP
2019-04-16 04:34:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies.
Sure it is. Just because it helps others doesn't take anything away
from that fact.
You just like to bitch.

Not about anything really important... just when it concerns your
opposite number.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
BTR1701
2019-04-16 05:48:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift"
to tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their
business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
Without 230, Usenet might go back to being the only bastion of
uncensored speech left on the net.
Sure it is. Just because it helps others doesn't take anything away
from that fact. You just like to bitch.
Not about anything really important... just when it concerns your
opposite number.
Pelosi is my 'opposite number' now? I had no idea I was a ranking member
of Congress. Wow. I bet my constituents are pissed that I didn't even
realize they'd elected me.
FPP
2019-04-16 07:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift"
to tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their
business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
Without 230, Usenet might go back to being the only bastion of
uncensored speech left on the net.
Sure it is. Just because it helps others doesn't take anything away
from that fact. You just like to bitch.
Not about anything really important... just when it concerns your
opposite number.
Pelosi is my 'opposite number' now? I had no idea I was a ranking member
of Congress. Wow. I bet my constituents are pissed that I didn't even
realize they'd elected me.
You Republicans are funny that way...
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
Ubiquitous
2019-04-16 08:44:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
Isn't it funny how leftists are OK with free speech, as long as they agree
with it?
--
Trump: A president so great that Democrats who said they would leave
America if he won decided to stay!
FPP
2019-04-16 23:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
Isn't it funny how leftists are OK with free speech, as long as they agree
with it?
So "handful of Republicans" referenced = "leftists"?
Didn't they never teach you about "right and left"?

Do you even kkknow all of your colors yet?
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
shawn
2019-04-16 14:56:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in. While it might be scary giving such a
warning is certainly better than taking the actions we see taking
place in Europe and in New Zealand where free speech as we have in the
USA is going the way of the dodo.

I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy because there's just too much interest in getting
those clicks. Whether to earn money or to sow discord or even to serve
some higher purpose (such as documenting various atrocities.) It's a
never ending battle and there are more people working against the
social media companies than they have employed to stop them.


Over on Youtube on the channel SmarterEveryDay there's an interesting
series going on about this battle to keep the social media platforms
clear of the various sorts of, hmm, I guess I'll just call it spam
though it's clearly more than that.

Why Your Newsfeed SUCKS
Manipulating the YouTube
Algorithm - (Part 1/3)

Twitter Platform
Manipulation - (Part 2/3)
Post by BTR1701
Without 230, Usenet might go back to being the only bastion of
uncensored speech left on the net.
That's sad as not many people even know Usenet exists. Even among the
so called nerds and geeks of the world it's just not really even
thought of.
BTR1701
2019-04-16 16:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.

And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
moviePig
2019-04-16 16:57:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
shawn
2019-04-16 17:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Agreed. Reading through her comments I see no where that she wants to
do this. She's merely stating a fact that it seems many people are up
in arms over what the social media platforms are and are not blocking
and that there may be attempts at governmental intervention if they
don't become better at handling the blocking of content the companies
are doing. That is something that seems fairly obvious to me.
Especially given the actions we see being taken in other countries.

I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
BTR1701
2019-04-16 17:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Agreed. Reading through her comments I see no where that she wants to
do this. She's merely stating a fact that it seems many people are up
in arms over what the social media platforms are and are not blocking
and that there may be attempts at governmental intervention if they
don't become better at handling the blocking of content the companies
are doing. That is something that seems fairly obvious to me.
Especially given the actions we see being taken in other countries.
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected speech,
even if done by a private party, then that action can (and should be)
invalidated.
shawn
2019-04-16 20:40:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Agreed. Reading through her comments I see no where that she wants to
do this. She's merely stating a fact that it seems many people are up
in arms over what the social media platforms are and are not blocking
and that there may be attempts at governmental intervention if they
don't become better at handling the blocking of content the companies
are doing. That is something that seems fairly obvious to me.
Especially given the actions we see being taken in other countries.
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected speech,
even if done by a private party, then that action can (and should be)
invalidated.
But what is protected speech? That clearly changes over time given how
the FCC has acted on television and what is allowed on broadcast TV
and what isn't. Otherwise I don't see how this can exist:
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
Dimensional Traveler
2019-04-16 23:06:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Agreed. Reading through her comments I see no where that she wants to
do this. She's merely stating a fact that it seems many people are up
in arms over what the social media platforms are and are not blocking
and that there may be attempts at governmental intervention if they
don't become better at handling the blocking of content the companies
are doing. That is something that seems fairly obvious to me.
Especially given the actions we see being taken in other countries.
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected speech,
even if done by a private party, then that action can (and should be)
invalidated.
But what is protected speech? That clearly changes over time given how
the FCC has acted on television and what is allowed on broadcast TV
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
As one of Pelosi's "constituents" who has been bombarded with her "this
is what I'm doing to protect you as your representative" mailings for
years, she very, very much wants to regulate and control the Internet.
I don't trust her as far as I would be able to kick her AFTER her
security beat the living shit out of me for daring to try to speak to her.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
FPP
2019-04-17 00:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."?  Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection?  Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless
measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again.  Afaics, you and Ed
are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Agreed. Reading through her comments I see no where that she wants to
do this. She's merely stating a fact that it seems many people are up
in arms over what the social media platforms are and are not blocking
and that there may be attempts at governmental intervention if they
don't become better at handling the blocking of content the companies
are doing. That is something that seems fairly obvious to me.
Especially given the actions we see being taken in other countries.
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected speech,
even if done by a private party, then that action can (and should be)
invalidated.
But what is protected speech? That clearly changes over time given how
the FCC has acted on television and what is allowed on broadcast TV
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
As one of Pelosi's "constituents" who has been bombarded with her "this
is what I'm doing to protect you as your representative" mailings for
years, she very, very much wants to regulate and control the Internet. I
don't trust her as far as I would be able to kick her AFTER her security
beat the living shit out of me for daring to try to speak to her.
We SHOULD be regulating and controlling the internet. Jesus, you want
to leave that to rapacious businessmen?

Net Neutrality was the perfect example of controlling the internet.
Public utilities SHOULD be (and are) regulated.

Otherwise, only people with enough money will be able to use them.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
Ed Stasiak
2019-04-17 14:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
FPP
We SHOULD be regulating and controlling the internet.
Agreed, but only towards the goal of insuring wide access and freedom
of speech for the users.
Post by FPP
Jesus, you want to leave that to rapacious businessmen?
Which is what we have now; an unholy alliance of rapacious businessmen
and government apparatchiks.
moviePig
2019-04-17 15:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
We SHOULD be regulating and controlling the internet.
Agreed, but only towards the goal of insuring wide access and freedom
of speech for the users.
Btw, afaics, Pelosi is a leading champion of Internet neutrality.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
Jesus, you want to leave that to rapacious businessmen?
Which is what we have now; an unholy alliance of rapacious businessmen
and government apparatchiks.
...which, I assume you'll agree, swamp-drainer Trump has worsened.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
2019-04-17 15:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
We SHOULD be regulating and controlling the internet.
Agreed, but only towards the goal of insuring wide access and freedom
of speech for the users.
Which, of course, is not what Pelosi wants or is talking about.
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
Jesus, you want to leave that to rapacious businessmen?
Which is what we have now; an unholy alliance of rapacious businessmen
and government apparatchiks.
moviePig
2019-04-17 17:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
We SHOULD be regulating and controlling the internet.
Agreed, but only towards the goal of insuring wide access and freedom
of speech for the users.
Which, of course, is not what Pelosi wants or is talking about.
I've heard Pelosi wanting Internet neutrality. Where can I hear her
*not* wanting 'wide access and freedom of speech'?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
FPP
2019-04-17 22:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
We SHOULD be regulating and controlling the internet.
Agreed, but only towards the goal of insuring wide access and freedom
of speech for the users.
Which, of course, is not what Pelosi wants or is talking about.
I've heard Pelosi wanting Internet neutrality.  Where can I hear her
*not* wanting 'wide access and freedom of speech'?
Wants it? She just PASSED it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/tech/house-net-neutrality-vote/index.html
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
The Horny Goat
2019-04-18 00:38:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
I've heard Pelosi wanting Internet neutrality.  Where can I hear her
*not* wanting 'wide access and freedom of speech'?
Wants it? She just PASSED it.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/tech/house-net-neutrality-vote/index.html
Well passing something generally means you want it.....
FPP
2019-04-17 22:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
We SHOULD be regulating and controlling the internet.
Agreed, but only towards the goal of insuring wide access and freedom
of speech for the users.
Which, of course, is not what Pelosi wants or is talking about.
Who just passed a new Net Neutrality bill, moron? Yup, Nancy Pelosi.

"The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill to restore net
neutrality protections that were repealed by President Donald Trump's
Federal Communications Commission in a controversial move more than a
year ago.

The bill, called the Save the Internet Act, would reinstate protections
that require internet service providers to treat all online content the
same. Providers would once again be explicitly prohibited from blocking,
speeding up, or slowing down access to specific online services.
Its passage represents a victory for Democrats, technology companies and
consumer advocacy groups who have loudly protested the FCC's repeal of
the rules"

For fuck's sake, if you're going to lie, at least be a little less
obvious about it!
The only thing that's "stretched" around here is your credibility.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
BTR1701
2019-04-17 03:06:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected speech,
even if done by a private party, then that action can (and should be)
invalidated.
But what is protected speech? That clearly changes over time given how
the FCC has acted on television and what is allowed on broadcast TV
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
Since the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from abridging free
speech, the Supreme Court ruled that the only way content-based
regulation by FCC is justified under the Constitution is through its
duty to maintain the public commons-- i.e., the public airwaves. Any
non-broadcast attempt by the government to dictate content-- to prohibit
language or sex or (in this case) to tell a private entity what
commercials it can air or what programming content it can and cannot
delete, is an unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment.

Cable television and On Demand services and social media platforms do
not use the public airwaves and their content choices are therefore not
subject to FCC jurisdiction.

This is why Comedy Central-- a cable channel-- can air the SOUTH PARK
movie uncensored, with it's myriad f-bombs and other profanity, whenever
it likes, but NBC could never legally be able to do so without risking
massive fines. This is why FX can air THE AMERICANS with nude scenes
that could never make the cut on CBS.
moviePig
2019-04-17 14:51:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected speech,
even if done by a private party, then that action can (and should be)
invalidated.
But what is protected speech? That clearly changes over time given how
the FCC has acted on television and what is allowed on broadcast TV
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
Since the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from abridging free
speech, the Supreme Court ruled that the only way content-based
regulation by FCC is justified under the Constitution is through its
duty to maintain the public commons-- i.e., the public airwaves. Any
non-broadcast attempt by the government to dictate content-- to prohibit
language or sex or (in this case) to tell a private entity what
commercials it can air or what programming content it can and cannot
delete, is an unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment.
Cable television and On Demand services and social media platforms do
not use the public airwaves and their content choices are therefore not
subject to FCC jurisdiction.
This is why Comedy Central-- a cable channel-- can air the SOUTH PARK
movie uncensored, with it's myriad f-bombs and other profanity, whenever
it likes, but NBC could never legally be able to do so without risking
massive fines. This is why FX can air THE AMERICANS with nude scenes
that could never make the cut on CBS.
Re looming Pepsi-ads, is the 'night sky' part of the "public airwaves"?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
2019-04-17 15:42:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected
speech, even if done by a private party, then that action can (and
should be) invalidated.
But what is protected speech? That clearly changes over time given how
the FCC has acted on television and what is allowed on broadcast TV
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcast
s
Since the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from abridging free
speech, the Supreme Court ruled that the only way content-based
regulation by FCC is justified under the Constitution is through its
duty to maintain the public commons-- i.e., the public airwaves. Any
non-broadcast attempt by the government to dictate content-- to prohibit
language or sex or (in this case) to tell a private entity what
commercials it can air or what programming content it can and cannot
delete, is an unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment.
Cable television and On Demand services and social media platforms do
not use the public airwaves and their content choices are therefore not
subject to FCC jurisdiction.
This is why Comedy Central-- a cable channel-- can air the SOUTH PARK
movie uncensored, with it's myriad f-bombs and other profanity, whenever
it likes, but NBC could never legally be able to do so without risking
massive fines. This is why FX can air THE AMERICANS with nude scenes
that could never make the cut on CBS.
Re looming Pepsi-ads, is the 'night sky' part of the "public airwaves"?
No. The airwaves are specifically the portion of the electromagnetic
spectrum that carry audio and visual transmissions.
moviePig
2019-04-17 17:16:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected
speech, even if done by a private party, then that action can (and
should be) invalidated.
But what is protected speech? That clearly changes over time given how
the FCC has acted on television and what is allowed on broadcast TV
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcast
s
Since the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from abridging free
speech, the Supreme Court ruled that the only way content-based
regulation by FCC is justified under the Constitution is through its
duty to maintain the public commons-- i.e., the public airwaves. Any
non-broadcast attempt by the government to dictate content-- to prohibit
language or sex or (in this case) to tell a private entity what
commercials it can air or what programming content it can and cannot
delete, is an unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment.
Cable television and On Demand services and social media platforms do
not use the public airwaves and their content choices are therefore not
subject to FCC jurisdiction.
This is why Comedy Central-- a cable channel-- can air the SOUTH PARK
movie uncensored, with it's myriad f-bombs and other profanity, whenever
it likes, but NBC could never legally be able to do so without risking
massive fines. This is why FX can air THE AMERICANS with nude scenes
that could never make the cut on CBS.
Re looming Pepsi-ads, is the 'night sky' part of the "public airwaves"?
No. The airwaves are specifically the portion of the electromagnetic
spectrum that carry audio and visual transmissions.
Ah, the irony of terminology. But it does seem that whatever social
logic put the FCC in control of the broadcast spectrum ought to be
extended to include the one sky we all look at...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
2019-04-17 18:00:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected
speech, even if done by a private party, then that action can (and
should be) invalidated.
But what is protected speech? That clearly changes over time given how
the FCC has acted on television and what is allowed on broadcast TV
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcast
s
Since the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from abridging free
speech, the Supreme Court ruled that the only way content-based
regulation by FCC is justified under the Constitution is through its
duty to maintain the public commons-- i.e., the public airwaves. Any
non-broadcast attempt by the government to dictate content-- to prohibit
language or sex or (in this case) to tell a private entity what
commercials it can air or what programming content it can and cannot
delete, is an unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment.
Cable television and On Demand services and social media platforms do
not use the public airwaves and their content choices are therefore not
subject to FCC jurisdiction.
This is why Comedy Central-- a cable channel-- can air the SOUTH PARK
movie uncensored, with it's myriad f-bombs and other profanity, whenever
it likes, but NBC could never legally be able to do so without risking
massive fines. This is why FX can air THE AMERICANS with nude scenes
that could never make the cut on CBS.
Re looming Pepsi-ads, is the 'night sky' part of the "public airwaves"?
No. The airwaves are specifically the portion of the electromagnetic
spectrum that carry audio and visual transmissions.
Ah, the irony of terminology. But it does seem that whatever social
logic put the FCC in control of the broadcast spectrum ought to be
extended to include the one sky we all look at...
Congress could certainly pass such an extension of authority to the FCC. It
would be up to the Court to determine whether that's kosher with the 1st
Amendment with regard to content-based discrimination and prior restraint.

However, Congress doesn't have jurisdiction over the whole planet, so even
if the law passes scrutiny by the Court, it would all be moot if the
advertiser was operating out of Mexico or Russia or Belize. They could put
one of these things up that would not only hang over their country, but the
entire Northern Hemisphere. As Billy Bob Thornton says in ARMAGEDDON, "It's
a big-ass sky."
FPP
2019-04-16 23:45:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Agreed. Reading through her comments I see no where that she wants to
do this. She's merely stating a fact that it seems many people are up
in arms over what the social media platforms are and are not blocking
and that there may be attempts at governmental intervention if they
don't become better at handling the blocking of content the companies
are doing. That is something that seems fairly obvious to me.
Especially given the actions we see being taken in other countries.
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected speech,
even if done by a private party, then that action can (and should be)
invalidated.
If it was done by a private party, how does that involve the government?
Is that private party NOT free to do as it pleases, within the law?

Are you suggesting we limit the freedoms that private parties enjoy?
Because you're one hell of a lot closer to censoring people than Pelosi
ever was.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
BTR1701
2019-04-17 03:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
I get where BTR is coming from with his mention of free speech but the
government can take many forms of action against these companies that
don't directly inhibit free speech.
If the result of a government action is the censorship of protected
speech, even if done by a private party, then that action can (and
should be) invalidated.
If it was done by a private party, how does that involve the government?
The government can't force or influence private actors to do what it is
forbidden to do itself, especially when it concerns a guaranteed
fundamental right.

If the cops don't have enough evidence for a warrant to search a guy's
house, they can't cajole or threaten an informant to do it for them,
then claim the evidence found is kosher for trial because it wasn't the
government that searched the defendant's house.
BTR1701
2019-04-17 02:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy.
Whether the government is happy or not is not and should not be any
citizen's concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed
freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Agreed. Reading through her comments I see no where that she wants to
do this.
Be extraordinarily wary of those who would characterize core liberties
as "gifts". This is the same class of activity as the taciturn but
well-spoken men in black suits who, for a low monthly fee, will offer
you the "gift" of not having your home or business burnt to the ground.
FPP
2019-04-17 03:39:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy.
Whether the government is happy or not is not and should not be any
citizen's concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed
freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Agreed. Reading through her comments I see no where that she wants to
do this.
Be extraordinarily wary of those who would characterize core liberties
as "gifts". This is the same class of activity as the taciturn but
well-spoken men in black suits who, for a low monthly fee, will offer
you the "gift" of not having your home or business burnt to the ground.
“I will give you everything.” -Donald Trump campaign promise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-will-give-you-everything-here-are-282-of-donald-trumps-campaign-promises/2016/11/24/01160678-b0f9-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.209ff852d223
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
moviePig
2019-04-17 14:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy.
Whether the government is happy or not is not and should not be any
citizen's concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed
freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Agreed. Reading through her comments I see no where that she wants to
do this.
Be extraordinarily wary of those who would characterize core liberties
as "gifts". This is the same class of activity as the taciturn but
well-spoken men in black suits who, for a low monthly fee, will offer
you the "gift" of not having your home or business burnt to the ground.
Yes, and be extraordinarily wary especially of politicians ...why not?
However, it'd be somewhat unusual for one to brag about a specific
largesse as a preface to taking it away, when there's the much simpler
alternative motive of simply making the opposition look like a threat.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ed Stasiak
2019-04-16 17:17:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
moviePig
BTR1701
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of
the fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Again, why do you focus on Pelosi rather than on the Republicans who have
actually attempted to remove the free-speech protection?
Please, the politically correct anti-free speech insanity is being driven SJWs
of the Left/Dems, this lawsuit by a Rep looking to get some media attention
is a drop in the bucket in comparison and Pelosi only mentioned it because
it supports the long time policy of the Dems to force government censhoship
on the People.
Shadow
2019-04-16 20:33:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Just like RichA. He didn't read the article. He came to the
name "Pelosi" and had a typical repuglican fit.
Pelosi is WARNING that right wingers are trying to remove free
speech.
I suggest that BT, Ubi and RichA read the article. Ask someone
to paint over her name if it makes them wet themselves.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
RichA
2019-04-16 22:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."? Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection? Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again. Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
Nearly ALL attempts at censorship of the internet today originate from LEFT-WING organizations or dictatorships. The latest EU "copyright protection" bill was the worst. The EU is LEFT-WING!!!
FPP
2019-04-16 23:43:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the
government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Post by shawn
I'm not sure that the social media companies can do enough to keep the
US government happy
In the US, it's not our obligation to keep the government happy. Whether
the government is happy or not is not and should not be any citizen's
concern, especially with regard to exercising guaranteed freedoms.
"...if *Pelosi* is threatening..."?  Again, why do you focus on Pelosi
rather than on the Republicans who have actually attempted to remove the
free-speech protection?  Pelosi seems to be saying that, unless measures
are taken, they -- not *she* -- will try again.  Afaics, you and Ed are
diluting the message with your eagerness to shoot the messenger...
That's a little like saying "if Thanny was telling the truth." in so far
as neither has happened to date.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
FPP
2019-04-16 23:43:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
She isn't.
You. Is. Lying.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
trotsky
2019-04-17 12:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FPP
2019-04-17 22:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, that just leaves ALL of the others for Trump. President Queeg
will have to be content to let "Nancy", as he calls her, have THAT one.

But don't worry... he'll make up for it by throwing an EXTRA baby in a
cage this month.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
trotsky
2019-04-17 12:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Were you trying to use Pelosi's words against her or did your abject
stupidity push you in that direction?

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/21519-3/
Post by BTR1701
Trump Violates Constitution and Undermines America’s Safety with Emergency Declaration
February 15, 2019
This morning, President Trump unlawfully declared a national emergency over a crisis at the border that does not exist. The President himself even admitted that he “didn’t need to” declare an emergency but did so because he wanted to construct the border wall “much faster.” This is a power grab by a clearly desperate and disappointed President who failed to get what he wanted in Congress, and now is violating the Constitution and making America less safe, all to make good on a campaign applause line.
FPP
2019-04-17 22:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the
government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Were you trying to use Pelosi's words against her or did your abject
stupidity push you in that direction?
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/21519-3/
Post by BTR1701
Trump Violates Constitution and Undermines America’s Safety with Emergency Declaration
February 15, 2019
This morning, President Trump unlawfully declared a national emergency
over a crisis at the border that does not exist.  The President
himself even admitted that he “didn’t need to” declare an emergency
but did so because he wanted to construct the border wall “much
faster.”  This is a power grab by a clearly desperate and disappointed
President who failed to get what he wanted in Congress, and now is
violating the Constitution and making America less safe, all to make
good on a campaign applause line.
You'll notice how big an "emergency" that was, right?
Without an impending election, none of Trump's "emergencies" seem very
urgent, do they?
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
trotsky
2019-04-18 00:20:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the
government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Were you trying to use Pelosi's words against her or did your abject
stupidity push you in that direction?
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/21519-3/
Post by BTR1701
Trump Violates Constitution and Undermines America’s Safety with
Emergency Declaration
February 15, 2019
This morning, President Trump unlawfully declared a national
emergency over a crisis at the border that does not exist.  The
President himself even admitted that he “didn’t need to” declare an
emergency but did so because he wanted to construct the border wall
“much faster.”  This is a power grab by a clearly desperate and
disappointed President who failed to get what he wanted in Congress,
and now is violating the Constitution and making America less safe,
all to make good on a campaign applause line.
You'll notice how big an "emergency" that was, right?
Without an impending election, none of Trump's "emergencies" seem very
urgent, do they?
The emergency was the border "crisis"? And we're all going to get
killed and raped (in that order) by MS13s? I'm sure one of the
Trumpologists here will give us an explanation.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
FPP
2019-04-18 02:27:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies. If it's a gift to
anyone, it's a gift to the American people, which allows them to speak
freely without massive censorship from the big tech companies. Without
it, those companies would be financially liable for everything users
post on their platforms, and would therefore either censor heavily or
eliminate public comments altogether.
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite.
That's an assumption on your part that doesn't seem warranted. Her
comments are merely pointing out something that should be blatantly
clear from the actions we've seen in other countries. Large social
media companies have to do more to keep their platforms clean or else
the government will step in
Unlike other countries, we have a 1st Amendment, which means internet
companies are under no more legal obligation to keep their platforms
'clean' than are book authors or movie makers or anyone else, which is to
say not at all. Nor can the government 'step in' and do it for them. Things
like 'hate speech' and 'offensiveness' and even that live stream of the New
Zealand shooting are protected speech here in the US and the government is
forbidden to do anything to censor it.
And if Pelosi is threatening removal of 230 defamation liability protection
as some sort of blackmail to force internet companies to do what she
can't-- to limit what is otherwise protected speech-- then she's violating
her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and undermining one of the
fundamental freedoms of the American people.
Were you trying to use Pelosi's words against her or did your abject
stupidity push you in that direction?
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/21519-3/
Post by BTR1701
Trump Violates Constitution and Undermines America’s Safety with
Emergency Declaration
February 15, 2019
This morning, President Trump unlawfully declared a national
emergency over a crisis at the border that does not exist.  The
President himself even admitted that he “didn’t need to” declare an
emergency but did so because he wanted to construct the border wall
“much faster.”  This is a power grab by a clearly desperate and
disappointed President who failed to get what he wanted in Congress,
and now is violating the Constitution and making America less safe,
all to make good on a campaign applause line.
You'll notice how big an "emergency" that was, right?
Without an impending election, none of Trump's "emergencies" seem very
urgent, do they?
The emergency was the border "crisis"?  And we're all going to get
killed and raped (in that order) by MS13s?  I'm sure one of the
Trumpologists here will give us an explanation.
There's a good possibility that this was one of those rare "National
Emergencies" that calls for 2 months of intensive golf before he starts
to work on it.

Or maybe 3...
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
trotsky
2019-04-17 12:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a "gift" to
tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business.
No, Stretch, it's not a gift to the tech companies.
Are you calling your own sockpuppet "Stretch"? That's pretty funny.
moviePig
2019-04-16 02:23:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is “in jeopardy”
In a new interview with Recode, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made some notable comments
on what by all accounts is the most important law underpinning the modern internet as we know it.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is as short as it is potent — and it’s worth
getting familiar with. It states “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a “gift” to tech companies that have
leaned heavily on the law to grow their business. That provision, providing tech platforms legal cover
for content created by their users, is what allowed services like Facebook, YouTube and many others
to swell into the massive companies they are today.
“It is a gift to them and I don’t think that they are treating it with the respect that they should, and so
I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy… I do think that for the privilege of 230,
there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not out of the question that that could
be removed.”
Expect to hear a lot more about Section 230. In recent months, a handful of Republicans in Congress
have taken aim at the law. Section 230 is what’s between the lines in Devin Nunes’ recent lawsuit
accusing critics for defaming him on Twitter. It’s also the extremely consequential subtext beneath
conservative criticism that Twitter, Facebook and Google do not run “neutral” platforms.
While the idea of stripping away Section 230 is by no means synonymous with broader efforts to
regulate big tech, it _is_ the nuclear option. And when tech’s most massive companies behave badly,
it’s a reminder to some of them that their very existences hinge on 26 words that Congress giveth and
Congress can taketh away.
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a fearsome cudgel against even tech’s
most seemingly untouchable companies. While it’s not clear what some potentially misguided lawmakers
would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi’s comments are a reminder that tech’s biggest
companies and users alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship. How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
FPP
2019-04-16 04:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is “in jeopardy”
In a new interview with Recode, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made some notable comments
on what by all accounts is the most important law underpinning the
modern internet as we know it.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is as short as it
is potent — and it’s worth
getting familiar with. It states “No provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.”
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a “gift”
to tech companies that have
leaned heavily on the law to grow their business. That provision,
providing tech platforms legal cover
for content created by their users, is what allowed services like
Facebook, YouTube and many others
to swell into the massive companies they are today.
“It is a gift to them and I don’t think that they are treating it with
the respect that they should, and so
I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy… I do think
that for the privilege of 230,
there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not
out of the question that that could
be removed.”
Expect to hear a lot more about Section 230. In recent months, a
handful of Republicans in Congress
have taken aim at the law. Section 230 is what’s between the lines in
Devin Nunes’ recent lawsuit
accusing critics for defaming him on Twitter. It’s also the extremely
consequential subtext beneath
conservative criticism that Twitter, Facebook and Google do not run
“neutral” platforms.
While the idea of stripping away Section 230 is by no means synonymous
with broader efforts to
regulate big tech, it _is_ the nuclear option. And when tech’s most
massive companies behave badly,
it’s a reminder to some of them that their very existences hinge on 26
words that Congress giveth and
Congress can taketh away.
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech’s
most seemingly untouchable companies. While it’s not clear what some
potentially misguided lawmakers
would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi’s comments are a
reminder that tech’s biggest
companies and users alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile?
How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read from the article he cited:

"In recent months, a handful of Republicans in Congress have taken aim
at the law. Section 230 is what’s between the lines in Devin Nunes’
recent lawsuit accusing critics for defaming him on Twitter."

So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.

Aren't you shocked!
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
BTR1701
2019-04-16 05:45:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.

Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.

It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
FPP
2019-04-16 07:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
You DO remember what I told you just yesterday, right? I don't SEE
"Ed's" posts, so I only saw yours.

And, yes, YOU are the liar here, as well. You may not have posted the
original lie, but you chimed in and lied right along with "Ed".
Post by BTR1701
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch?
So, yeah, YOU'RE still a fucking liar, although not Liar Prime... and
you're just getting sloppy seconds. That makes you no better than "Ed".

So, do let me apologize for getting the attribution wrong. But THAT'S
ALL I got wrong.
That still makes you a fucking bald-faced liar. Either that, or you
couldn't manage to read "Ed's" article for content.

Because if you got the idea that "Stretch's" goal was to limit the free
internet, you're an imbecile. And outside of getting the OP wrong,
everything else I said still applies.

You're nowhere near off that hook, counselor. Quite the contrary.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
Ed Stasiak
2019-04-16 15:50:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
FPP
BTR1701
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech
and destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch?
Because if you got the idea that "Stretch's" goal was to limit the free
internet, you're an imbecile.
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.

The drive to censor social media is being carried out the Left/Dems, who cry
crocodile tears about “bullying” and “hate speech” at every turn, yet employ
it whenever possible against their political opponents

The danger here isn’t from Nunes’ lawsuit (which despite being valid, won’t
go anywhere) it’s from censorious assholes on the Left demanding Internet
communication companies impose tight controls on free speech to “protect”
people from having their feelings hurt.

It’s you and yours who are demanding mass censorship.
moviePig
2019-04-16 17:11:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
BTR1701
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech
and destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch?
Because if you got the idea that "Stretch's" goal was to limit the free
internet, you're an imbecile.
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.
The drive to censor social media is being carried out the Left/Dems, who cry
crocodile tears about “bullying” and “hate speech” at every turn, yet employ
it whenever possible against their political opponents
The danger here isn’t from Nunes’ lawsuit (which despite being valid, won’t
go anywhere) it’s from censorious assholes on the Left demanding Internet
communication companies impose tight controls on free speech to “protect”
people from having their feelings hurt.
It’s you and yours who are demanding mass censorship.
So, let's not blame Nunes and the other Conservatives who openly seek to
revoke 230, let's blame Pelosi for warning us about their efforts --
because she's a politician just like they are. Hell, why not work AOC
and Omar in there, too? Their names are shorter...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
2019-04-16 17:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
BTR1701
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech
and destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch?
Because if you got the idea that "Stretch's" goal was to limit the free
internet, you're an imbecile.
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.
The drive to censor social media is being carried out the Left/Dems, who cry
crocodile tears about “bullying” and “hate speech” at every turn, yet employ
it whenever possible against their political opponents
The danger here isn’t from Nunes’ lawsuit (which despite being valid, won’t
go anywhere) it’s from censorious assholes on the Left demanding Internet
communication companies impose tight controls on free speech to “protect”
people from having their feelings hurt.
It’s you and yours who are demanding mass censorship.
So, let's not blame Nunes and the other Conservatives who openly seek to
revoke 230
Why don't we blame every single one of the slimey assholes-- Pelosi, Nunes,
Trump, everyone-- who thinks it's their job and duty to shut people up. For
our own good of course, with a healthy dose of 'think of the cheeeldruuun!'
thrown in for good measure.
Post by moviePig
let's blame Pelosi for warning us about their efforts
Her 'gift that can be taken away' comment was a veiled threat and you know
it. Nunes is a dick and so is every Republican that's following his lead
but Pelosi is no better. She would be quite happy if the private sector
muzzled the annoying rabble on the internet for her.

Pelosi is no fan of the masses having a voice. She was the one who famously
told us to be careful about 'irresponsibly' using our free speech to
criticize Obama when he was in charge. After telling us that dissent was
the highest form of patriotism during the Bush years, it suddenly became an
irresponsible use of freedom to dissent from Barack.
FPP
2019-04-16 23:14:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
BTR1701
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech
and destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch?
Because if you got the idea that "Stretch's" goal was to limit the free
internet, you're an imbecile.
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.
The drive to censor social media is being carried out the Left/Dems, who cry
crocodile tears about “bullying” and “hate speech” at every turn, yet employ
it whenever possible against their political opponents
The danger here isn’t from Nunes’ lawsuit (which despite being valid, won’t
go anywhere) it’s from censorious assholes on the Left demanding Internet
communication companies impose tight controls on free speech to “protect”
people from having their feelings hurt.
It’s you and yours who are demanding mass censorship.
So, let's not blame Nunes and the other Conservatives who openly seek to
revoke 230
Why don't we blame every single one of the slimey assholes-- Pelosi, Nunes,
Trump, everyone-- who thinks it's their job and duty to shut people up. For
our own good of course, with a healthy dose of 'think of the cheeeldruuun!'
thrown in for good measure.
Because we don't blame everybody when a bunch of Republican autocrats
want to take away your freedom of speech.

We actually blame the people responsible.

See? Now was that REALLY so hard a question to answer?
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
FPP
2019-04-16 23:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
BTR1701
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech
and destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch?
Because if you got the idea that "Stretch's" goal was to limit the free
internet, you're an imbecile.
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.
The drive to censor social media is being carried out the Left/Dems, who cry
crocodile tears about “bullying” and “hate speech” at every turn, yet employ
it whenever possible against their political opponents
The danger here isn’t from Nunes’ lawsuit (which despite being valid, won’t
go anywhere) it’s from censorious assholes on the Left demanding Internet
communication companies impose tight controls on free speech to “protect”
people from having their feelings hurt.
It’s you and yours who are demanding mass censorship.
So, let's not blame Nunes and the other Conservatives who openly seek to
revoke 230
Why don't we blame every single one of the slimey assholes-- Pelosi, Nunes,
Trump, everyone-- who thinks it's their job and duty to shut people up. For
our own good of course, with a healthy dose of 'think of the cheeeldruuun!'
thrown in for good measure.
Post by moviePig
let's blame Pelosi for warning us about their efforts
Her 'gift that can be taken away' comment was a veiled threat and you know
it. Nunes is a dick and so is every Republican that's following his lead
but Pelosi is no better. She would be quite happy if the private sector
muzzled the annoying rabble on the internet for her.
So, is the guy who calls the Fire Department no better than the arsonist?
Sure she's better. Lots better. She's not doing anything but sounding
a warning.

Now you're just Trump-ranting (tm)...
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
FPP
2019-04-16 23:21:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
BTR1701
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech
and destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch?
Because if you got the idea that "Stretch's" goal was to limit the free
internet, you're an imbecile.
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.
The drive to censor social media is being carried out the Left/Dems, who cry
crocodile tears about “bullying” and “hate speech” at every turn, yet employ
it whenever possible against their political opponents
The danger here isn’t from Nunes’ lawsuit (which despite being valid, won’t
go anywhere) it’s from censorious assholes on the Left demanding Internet
communication companies impose tight controls on free speech to “protect”
people from having their feelings hurt.
It’s you and yours who are demanding mass censorship.
So, let's not blame Nunes and the other Conservatives who openly seek to
revoke 230
Why don't we blame every single one of the slimey assholes-- Pelosi, Nunes,
Trump, everyone-- who thinks it's their job and duty to shut people up. For
our own good of course, with a healthy dose of 'think of the cheeeldruuun!'
thrown in for good measure.
Post by moviePig
let's blame Pelosi for warning us about their efforts
Her 'gift that can be taken away' comment was a veiled threat and you know
it. Nunes is a dick and so is every Republican that's following his lead
but Pelosi is no better. She would be quite happy if the private sector
muzzled the annoying rabble on the internet for her.
Pelosi is no fan of the masses having a voice. She was the one who famously
told us to be careful about 'irresponsibly' using our free speech to
criticize Obama when he was in charge. After telling us that dissent was
the highest form of patriotism during the Bush years, it suddenly became an
irresponsible use of freedom to dissent from Barack.
Another fucking lie. Pelosi said Joe Lieberman was being
"irresponsible" for criticizing Obama because Lieberman was LYING about
Obama's position on issues like Israel.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-aug-14-na-pelosi14-story.html

Jesus fucking Christ, counselor... is there ANYTHING you DON'T lie about?
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
Ed Stasiak
2019-04-16 17:38:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.
So, let's not blame Nunes and the other Conservatives who openly seek to
revoke 230, let's blame Pelosi for warning us about their efforts -- because
she's a politician just like they are.
How about you stop pretending that the entire issue of censorship isn’t being
driven by the Left/Dems?

It’s as if one neighbor’s pack of Bumpus hound dogs are shitting on your lawn
everyday but you only bitch about it when the other neighbor’s cat does it on
occasion…
moviePig
2019-04-16 18:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.
So, let's not blame Nunes and the other Conservatives who openly seek to
revoke 230, let's blame Pelosi for warning us about their efforts -- because
she's a politician just like they are.
How about you stop pretending that the entire issue of censorship isn’t being
driven by the Left/Dems?
It’s as if one neighbor’s pack of Bumpus hound dogs are shitting on your lawn
everyday but you only bitch about it when the other neighbor’s cat does it on
occasion…
Here's the situation: With no prior knowledge of the immediate topic, I
tuned into this thread fully expecting an account of Nancy Pelosi's new
attempt at limiting free speech. Although it sounded to me a *little*
like "Man Bites Dog", I considered it far from impossible, and worth
knowing about regardless. But instead I found almost the opposite of
what the subject-header claimed. And now, having questioned why, I'm
told by you and BTR that the header is "correct" after all, if we just
take into account that Pelosi, being a politician, *automatically*
favors censorship, and that her *warning* about a threat is the same as
making the threat herself. Well, sorry, I'm not that far "in the know"
about such self-confirming contexts. And, as I doubt many readers here
are so well versed, I have to think your header comprises
disinformation, at best -- of a sort that, in your place, I'd correct.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
FPP
2019-04-16 23:40:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
moviePig
Ed Stasiak
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.
So, let's not blame Nunes and the other Conservatives who openly seek to
revoke 230, let's blame Pelosi for warning us about their efforts -- because
she's a politician just like they are.
How about you stop pretending that the entire issue of censorship isn’t being
driven by the Left/Dems?
It’s as if one neighbor’s pack of Bumpus hound dogs are shitting on your lawn
everyday but you only bitch about it when the other neighbor’s cat does it on
occasion…
Here's the situation:  With no prior knowledge of the immediate topic, I
tuned into this thread fully expecting an account of Nancy Pelosi's new
attempt at limiting free speech.  Although it sounded to me a *little*
like "Man Bites Dog", I considered it far from impossible, and worth
knowing about regardless.  But instead I found almost the opposite of
what the subject-header claimed.  And now, having questioned why, I'm
told by you and BTR that the header is "correct" after all, if we just
take into account that Pelosi, being a politician, *automatically*
favors censorship, and that her *warning* about a threat is the same as
making the threat herself.  Well, sorry, I'm not that far "in the know"
about such self-confirming contexts.  And, as I doubt many readers here
are so well versed, I have to think your header comprises
disinformation, at best -- of a sort that, in your place, I'd correct.
It's fun that you think "Ed" cares about that... if you're ever looking
for a bridge, let me know :-)
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
FPP
2019-04-16 23:12:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
BTR1701
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech
and destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch?
Because if you got the idea that "Stretch's" goal was to limit the free
internet, you're an imbecile.
Of course Pelosi wants to limit the Internet, all politicians and corporations
(who fund the politicians) all over the world want that, as they fear the People
being able to freely converse and call them out on their bullshit and corruption.
The drive to censor social media is being carried out the Left/Dems, who cry
crocodile tears about “bullying” and “hate speech” at every turn, yet employ
it whenever possible against their political opponents
The danger here isn’t from Nunes’ lawsuit (which despite being valid, won’t
go anywhere) it’s from censorious assholes on the Left demanding Internet
communication companies impose tight controls on free speech to “protect”
people from having their feelings hurt.
It’s you and yours who are demanding mass censorship.
So, let's not blame Nunes and the other Conservatives who openly seek to
revoke 230, let's blame Pelosi for warning us about their efforts --
because she's a politician just like they are.  Hell, why not work AOC
and Omar in there, too?  Their names are shorter...
By George, you've GOT IT!

A bunch of Freedom Lovin' Republicans want to fuck the American people
out of their freedom of speech, and a Democrat wants to warn people
about it.

Who does Thanny rag on? 2 guesses, an they're both Nancy Pelosi.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
BTR1701
2019-04-16 16:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
You DO remember what I told you just yesterday, right? I don't SEE
"Ed's" posts, so I only saw yours.
Doesn't matter. I didn't start the thread and subject header isn't 'mine'
because I replied to it any more than it's yours because you replied to it,
you spectacular asshole.

The fact that you killfiled someone and are now losing track of who said
what and are lying and making false accusations because of it is not my
problem or responsibility. It's yours, you monstrous dick.
Post by FPP
And, yes, YOU are the liar here, as well. You may not have posted the
original lie, but you chimed in and lied right along with "Ed".
Nothing I said about 230 was a lie. Hell, the ACLU has said the same thing
about 230 and the motivations of politicians who want to limit or get rid
of it. Are they lying, too?

You, on the other hand, outright lied when you said "from the article he
cited" referring to me, and claimed the subject header was mine.
FPP
2019-04-16 23:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
You DO remember what I told you just yesterday, right? I don't SEE
"Ed's" posts, so I only saw yours.
Doesn't matter. I didn't start the thread and subject header isn't 'mine'
because I replied to it any more than it's yours because you replied to it,
you spectacular asshole.
The fact that you killfiled someone and are now losing track of who said
what and are lying and making false accusations because of it is not my
problem or responsibility. It's yours, you monstrous dick.
Post by FPP
And, yes, YOU are the liar here, as well. You may not have posted the
original lie, but you chimed in and lied right along with "Ed".
Nothing I said about 230 was a lie. Hell, the ACLU has said the same thing
about 230 and the motivations of politicians who want to limit or get rid
of it. Are they lying, too?
You, on the other hand, outright lied when you said "from the article he
cited" referring to me, and claimed the subject header was mine.
Nope, I made a mistake in attribution, that's all.
You still lied about Pelosi and her motives.

I made a simple mistake. You lied.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
BTR1701
2019-04-17 03:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
You DO remember what I told you just yesterday, right? I don't SEE
"Ed's" posts, so I only saw yours.
Doesn't matter. I didn't start the thread and subject header isn't 'mine'
because I replied to it any more than it's yours because you replied to it,
you spectacular asshole.
The fact that you killfiled someone and are now losing track of who said
what and are lying and making false accusations because of it is not my
problem or responsibility. It's yours, you monstrous dick.
Post by FPP
And, yes, YOU are the liar here, as well. You may not have posted the
original lie, but you chimed in and lied right along with "Ed".
Nothing I said about 230 was a lie. Hell, the ACLU has said the same thing
about 230 and the motivations of politicians who want to limit or get rid
of it. Are they lying, too?
You, on the other hand, outright lied when you said "from the article he
cited" referring to me, and claimed the subject header was mine.
Nope, I made a mistake in attribution, that's all.
Nope. To use a phrase you're quite fond of-- your rules: mistakes are
lies now, so you're a liar.

Of course, that's irrelevant, because even *after* the 'mistake' was
pointed out to you, you continued to claim I was responsible for the
article ands subject line because you killfiled Ed, so I was good enough.

That makes you a liar.
FPP
2019-04-17 03:41:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
You DO remember what I told you just yesterday, right? I don't SEE
"Ed's" posts, so I only saw yours.
Doesn't matter. I didn't start the thread and subject header isn't 'mine'
because I replied to it any more than it's yours because you replied to it,
you spectacular asshole.
The fact that you killfiled someone and are now losing track of who said
what and are lying and making false accusations because of it is not my
problem or responsibility. It's yours, you monstrous dick.
Post by FPP
And, yes, YOU are the liar here, as well. You may not have posted the
original lie, but you chimed in and lied right along with "Ed".
Nothing I said about 230 was a lie. Hell, the ACLU has said the same thing
about 230 and the motivations of politicians who want to limit or get rid
of it. Are they lying, too?
You, on the other hand, outright lied when you said "from the article he
cited" referring to me, and claimed the subject header was mine.
Nope, I made a mistake in attribution, that's all.
Nope. To use a phrase you're quite fond of-- your rules: mistakes are
lies now, so you're a liar.
Of course, that's irrelevant, because even *after* the 'mistake' was
pointed out to you, you continued to claim I was responsible for the
article ands subject line because you killfiled Ed, so I was good enough.
That makes you a liar.
I've already admitted at least twice that I had the attribution wrong.
But you just can't take "yes" for an answer.

And you're still backpedaling from your lie that Pelosi wants to take
away your freedom of speech.

Stop lying, it isn't doing you any good.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
BTR1701
2019-04-17 04:03:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
You DO remember what I told you just yesterday, right? I don't SEE
"Ed's" posts, so I only saw yours.
Doesn't matter. I didn't start the thread and subject header isn't 'mine'
because I replied to it any more than it's yours because you replied to it,
you spectacular asshole.
The fact that you killfiled someone and are now losing track of who said
what and are lying and making false accusations because of it is not my
problem or responsibility. It's yours, you monstrous dick.
Post by FPP
And, yes, YOU are the liar here, as well. You may not have posted the
original lie, but you chimed in and lied right along with "Ed".
Nothing I said about 230 was a lie. Hell, the ACLU has said the same thing
about 230 and the motivations of politicians who want to limit or get rid
of it. Are they lying, too?
You, on the other hand, outright lied when you said "from the article he
cited" referring to me, and claimed the subject header was mine.
Nope, I made a mistake in attribution, that's all.
Nope. To use a phrase you're quite fond of-- your rules: mistakes are
lies now, so you're a liar.
Of course, that's irrelevant, because even *after* the 'mistake' was
pointed out to you, you continued to claim I was responsible for the
article ands subject line because you killfiled Ed, so I was good enough.
That makes you a liar.
I've already admitted at least twice that I had the attribution wrong.
But you just can't take "yes" for an answer.
Only if "yes" means an admission of lying. Your rules: mistakes are lies
now, so you're a liar.
FPP
2019-04-17 06:45:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
You DO remember what I told you just yesterday, right? I don't SEE
"Ed's" posts, so I only saw yours.
Doesn't matter. I didn't start the thread and subject header isn't 'mine'
because I replied to it any more than it's yours because you replied to it,
you spectacular asshole.
The fact that you killfiled someone and are now losing track of who said
what and are lying and making false accusations because of it is not my
problem or responsibility. It's yours, you monstrous dick.
Post by FPP
And, yes, YOU are the liar here, as well. You may not have posted the
original lie, but you chimed in and lied right along with "Ed".
Nothing I said about 230 was a lie. Hell, the ACLU has said the same thing
about 230 and the motivations of politicians who want to limit or get rid
of it. Are they lying, too?
You, on the other hand, outright lied when you said "from the article he
cited" referring to me, and claimed the subject header was mine.
Nope, I made a mistake in attribution, that's all.
Nope. To use a phrase you're quite fond of-- your rules: mistakes are
lies now, so you're a liar.
Of course, that's irrelevant, because even *after* the 'mistake' was
pointed out to you, you continued to claim I was responsible for the
article ands subject line because you killfiled Ed, so I was good enough.
That makes you a liar.
I've already admitted at least twice that I had the attribution wrong.
But you just can't take "yes" for an answer.
Only if "yes" means an admission of lying. Your rules: mistakes are lies
now, so you're a liar.
A lie is knowingly saying something false. Why the fuck would I lie
when the attribution is right there in black and white?

I'm asking an expert. Can you tell us why you lied about Pelosi?
Because me missing this ONE line...

In article <737534e9-869c-4471-9fc1-***@googlegroups.com>,
Ed Stasiak <***@att.net> wrote:

... doesn't amount to anywhere NEAR a lie.

**That's it!*8 That's my BIG "lie"! I missed a line. I'm a reg'lar
gangsta'!

Come on, counselor... even a piss-poor shit-for-brains "lawyer" could
make a case for an innocent mistake. Especially when I TOLD you a few
days before that I don't SEE Ed's posts.

Not YOU, of course... you obviously haven't risen to the stage of
"piss-poor shit-for-brains" yet - but you be sure to keep trying!
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
FPP
2019-04-17 06:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do
you
come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
You DO remember what I told you just yesterday, right?  I don't SEE
"Ed's" posts, so I only saw yours.
Doesn't matter. I didn't start the thread and subject header isn't 'mine'
because I replied to it any more than it's yours because you
replied to
it,
you spectacular asshole.
The fact that you killfiled someone and are now losing track of who said
what and are lying and making false accusations because of it is not my
problem or responsibility. It's yours, you monstrous dick.
And, yes, YOU are the liar here, as well. You may not have posted the
original lie, but you chimed in and lied right along with "Ed".
Nothing I said about 230 was a lie. Hell, the ACLU has said the same thing
about 230 and the motivations of politicians who want to limit or get rid
of it. Are they lying, too?
You, on the other hand, outright lied when you said "from the article he
cited" referring to me, and claimed the subject header was mine.
Nope, I made a mistake in attribution, that's all.
Nope. To use a phrase you're quite fond of-- your rules: mistakes are
lies now, so you're a liar.
Of course, that's irrelevant, because even *after* the 'mistake' was
pointed out to you, you continued to claim I was responsible for the
article ands subject line because you killfiled Ed, so I was good enough.
That makes you a liar.
I've already admitted at least twice that I had the attribution wrong.
But you just can't take "yes" for an answer.
Only if "yes" means an admission of lying. Your rules: mistakes are lies
now, so you're a liar.
I missed TWO FUCKING WORDS (Ed Stasiak).

And THAT'S what you're hanging your entire case for lying on?
You still claim to be a trained lawyer, do you? Would you go into court
with that case?

Can you at least tell us where you went to Law School, as a pubic
service - so none of us ever waste our money hiring a graduate of that
particular diploma factory?

Pretty please?
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
BTR1701
2019-04-17 08:19:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
I've already admitted at least twice that I had the attribution wrong.
But you just can't take "yes" for an answer.
Only if "yes" means an admission of lying. Your rules: mistakes are lies
now, so you're a liar.
A lie is knowingly saying something false.
Ah, so the goalposts move just for you, do they?

Of course, that's irrelevant, because even *after* the 'mistake' was
pointed out to you, you continued to claim I was responsible for the
article ands subject line because you killfiled Ed, so I was good enough.
FPP
2019-04-17 12:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
I've already admitted at least twice that I had the attribution wrong.
But you just can't take "yes" for an answer.
Only if "yes" means an admission of lying. Your rules: mistakes are lies
now, so you're a liar.
A lie is knowingly saying something false.
Ah, so the goalposts move just for you, do they?
Of course, that's irrelevant, because even *after* the 'mistake' was
pointed out to you, you continued to claim I was responsible for the
article ands subject line because you killfiled Ed, so I was good enough.
No, liar, I did not continue to claim you were responsible for the
article and subject line.
That's another lie.

I said you were responsible for continuing to smear Pelosi, and still
couldn't come up with any rationale for blaming her for what Republicans
are doing.

Do I need to quote myself again?
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
NoBody
2019-04-16 19:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
You DO remember what I told you just yesterday, right? I don't SEE
"Ed's" posts, so I only saw yours.
So you're admitting you're an idiot. Good to know.
Post by FPP
And, yes, YOU are the liar here, as well. You may not have posted the
original lie, but you chimed in and lied right along with "Ed".
He didn't say the words but he's the liar. Wow.
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch?
So, yeah, YOU'RE still a fucking liar, although not Liar Prime... and
you're just getting sloppy seconds. That makes you no better than "Ed".
FPP is a poor loser.
FPP
2019-04-16 07:03:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that
LOL! You're still a liar!
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
FPP
2019-04-16 07:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is "in jeopardy".
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech's most seemingly untouchable
companies. While it's not clear what some potentially misguided
lawmakers would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi's
comments are a reminder that tech's biggest companies and users
alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
Yeah, it sure was, and you sure did!
Oh, and remember when you asked why I killfiled "Ed"?

Thanks for providing us all with an example that even someone like you
can grasp.

Oh... and snipping the part of my post that proves you lied really isn't
going to work here, counselor. I'll just repost it:

"Removal of 230 protections would be a tremendous blow to free speech and
destroy the free and open internet-- which is probably the real goal
here, isn't it, Stretch? For grizzled pols like you, it's high time that
genie is jammed back in the bottle and the information flow in this
country goes back to being managed and curated by the elite."

Funny how you just happened to snip out the proof that you lied right
along with "Ed", isn't it?
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
Ubiquitous
2019-04-16 08:56:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
AFAICS from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
What, FPP lied about something?
What's next, FPP is neither a historian, an editor with a talent for using
Google, nor a gun owner?

(And here's where FPP posts multiple followups from himself and various
sockpuppets)

--
"Rhino, when do I say things I *can't* back up with citations of
fact? Go ahead... go and find something I stated as fact that you
don't think I can back up."
-- FPP <***@gmail.com>
moviePig
2019-04-16 14:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by BTR1701
AFAICS from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
What, FPP lied about something?
What's next, FPP is neither a historian, an editor with a talent for using
Google, nor a gun owner?
(And here's where FPP posts multiple followups from himself and various
sockpuppets)
Congratulations! Your post is Certified 100% Content-Free (TM)!...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
FPP
2019-04-16 23:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
Post by BTR1701
AFAICS from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile? How do you KNOW Thanny's lying? Just read
LOL! I didn't write or cite any of that. Ed's the one who started the
thread and cited the article, you drooling moron.
Yep, someone sure lied here, but it ain't me.
So, unless Nancy Pelosi's DC nickname happens to be "handful of
Republicans", what our resident Deputy Fife's Subject header is saying
is a fucking lie.
Seems like you're still referring to me, and since I didn't start the
thread, the subject header isn't mine, so that's another lie.
It's truly amazing how many lies you manage to tell while accusing
others of lying.
What, FPP lied about something?
What's next, FPP is neither a historian, an editor with a talent for using
Google, nor a gun owner?
(And here's where FPP posts multiple followups from himself and various
sockpuppets)
Well, you got the gun owner part right, anyway. That's 1 for 3 - better
than your usual average.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
NoBody
2019-04-16 19:13:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by moviePig
Post by Ed Stasiak
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/12/nancy-pelosi-section-230/
April 13, 2019
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is “in jeopardy”
In a new interview with Recode, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made some notable comments
on what by all accounts is the most important law underpinning the
modern internet as we know it.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is as short as it
is potent — and it’s worth
getting familiar with. It states “No provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.”
When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a “gift”
to tech companies that have
leaned heavily on the law to grow their business. That provision,
providing tech platforms legal cover
for content created by their users, is what allowed services like
Facebook, YouTube and many others
to swell into the massive companies they are today.
“It is a gift to them and I don’t think that they are treating it with
the respect that they should, and so
I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy… I do think
that for the privilege of 230,
there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not
out of the question that that could
be removed.”
Expect to hear a lot more about Section 230. In recent months, a
handful of Republicans in Congress
have taken aim at the law. Section 230 is what’s between the lines in
Devin Nunes’ recent lawsuit
accusing critics for defaming him on Twitter. It’s also the extremely
consequential subtext beneath
conservative criticism that Twitter, Facebook and Google do not run
“neutral” platforms.
While the idea of stripping away Section 230 is by no means synonymous
with broader efforts to
regulate big tech, it _is_ the nuclear option. And when tech’s most
massive companies behave badly,
it’s a reminder to some of them that their very existences hinge on 26
words that Congress giveth and
Congress can taketh away.
Whatever the political motivations, imperiling Section 230 is a
fearsome cudgel against even tech’s
most seemingly untouchable companies. While it’s not clear what some
potentially misguided lawmakers
would stand to gain by dismantling the law, Pelosi’s comments are a
reminder that tech’s biggest
companies and users alike have everything to lose.
Afaics from the above, Pelosi is cautioning tech companies not to give
*Republicans* an excuse to impose internet censorship.  How do you come
up with: "Pelosi Calls For Internet Censorship"?
Because he's a fucking liar. Isn't that how he USUALLY comes up with
his hourly dose of bile?
"In recent months, a handful of Republicans in Congress have taken aim
at the law. Section 230 is what’s between the lines in Devin Nunes’
recent lawsuit accusing critics for defaming him on Twitter."
Defamation has never fallen under freedom of speech.
Loading...