Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 57

Thread: Trump says he値l veto defense bill unless Section 230 is terminated

  1. #1

    Trump says he値l veto defense bill unless Section 230 is terminated

    Trump says he’ll veto defense bill unless Section 230 is terminated
    Criticism seemed to reach its tipping point during the Hunter Biden scandal in the weeks prior to the presidential election.

    Fox News
    December 1, 2020

    President Trump tweeted late Tuesday that he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act unless Congress repeals Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which critics say unfairly shields social media platforms from liability over items posted on their platforms.

    These opponents have been vocal that tech behemoths like Twitter and Facebook should no longer be shielded as a neutral platform when they operate more like a publisher.

    The criticism seemed to reach its tipping point during the Hunter Biden scandal in the weeks prior to the presidential election.



    ...

    “Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to “Big Tech” (the only companies in America that have it—corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand,” Trump tweeted. “Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!”

    Facebook and Twitter did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News.

    ...
    read more:
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...-is-terminated



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    That is interesting..
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  4. #3
    Would certainly be a great thing if he were to do this.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Would certainly be a great thing if he were to do this.
    Yes, but Trump is not stupid. He is a successful businessman after all.

    While this should be eliminated, it only pertains to DOD, not private companies. Trump already gifted awarded tax-payer money to biotech and Gates-tied vaccine companies, it will now be the private sector via public-private initiatives that will seal the deal on Global Surveillance. If one does not comply, he/she will not be hired, permitted to work, or exchange money for goods and services.

    The cat is out of the bag.


    https://media.defense.gov/2020/Mar/0..._%20FINAL_.PDF
    典he right to life is the source of all rights預nd the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

    An Agorist Primer

  6. #5

  7. #6

  8. #7
    Terminating Section 230 would be a bad thing right?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    Terminating Section 230 would be a bad thing right?
    Yes. It would spell the end of RonPaulForums.com. Most of the people who post here don't get it. The owners don't get it. The mods don't get it. Everyone thinks "We'll just get rid of big bad Facebook." Nope. Wrong. Every website that has moderated user supplied content could be sued over that user supplied content. So..either RonPaulForums.com would have to end all moderation (I wouldn't cry over that) or face litigation if someone libeled someone else, or....just close up shop. People are like "But Facebook is different because they are CIA funded." Actually....that's not true. I looked into it. Peter Thiel (Trump supporter) gave Facebook its VC and he is connected to a company that is connected to the CIA. "Oh...but it's different because Facebook pretends to be neutral and RPF does not." But....that's not what the law says. And here's the kicker. Even without Section 230, Facebook will find away around liability. Look at when Tucker Carlson and Fox News got sued for libel. They got around liability not but using Section 230, but by claiming that Tucker "really isn't news" and so shouldn't be considered factual.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

    So...why couldn't Facebook say "Our website shouldn't be considered news?" Newsflash...they CAN use that defense! Getting rid of Section 230 will help no one.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by jct74 View Post
    Tulsi's words mean nothing when she won't even back Trump on voter fraud.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  12. #10
    And it's interesting that Trump is tying NDAA to Section 230.

    What do the two have anything to do with each other?

    So now if Congress goes along with him and passes an NDAA that includes termination of Section 230, so that he will sign it, we'll get two bad things for the price of one. Trump is here saying, "I'll veto the NDAA unless you make it even worse! Then I'll sign it!"

    What's there to like about that?

  13. #11
    Supporting Member
    Michigan



    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    2,993
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yes. It would spell the end of RonPaulForums.com. Most of the people who post here don't get it. The owners don't get it. The mods don't get it. Everyone thinks "We'll just get rid of big bad Facebook." Nope. Wrong. Every website that has moderated user supplied content could be sued over that user supplied content. So..either RonPaulForums.com would have to end all moderation (I wouldn't cry over that) or face litigation if someone libeled someone else, or....just close up shop. People are like "But Facebook is different because they are CIA funded." Actually....that's not true. I looked into it. Peter Thiel (Trump supporter) gave Facebook its VC and he is connected to a company that is connected to the CIA. "Oh...but it's different because Facebook pretends to be neutral and RPF does not." But....that's not what the law says. And here's the kicker. Even without Section 230, Facebook will find away around liability. Look at when Tucker Carlson and Fox News got sued for libel. They got around liability not but using Section 230, but by claiming that Tucker "really isn't news" and so shouldn't be considered factual.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

    So...why couldn't Facebook say "Our website shouldn't be considered news?" Newsflash...they CAN use that defense! Getting rid of Section 230 will help no one.
    Agree!!!

  14. #12
    Supporting Member
    Michigan



    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    2,993
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    And it's interesting that Trump is tying NDAA to Section 230.

    What do the two have anything to do with each other?

    So now if Congress goes along with him and passes an NDAA that includes termination of Section 230, so that he will sign it, we'll get two bad things for the price of one. Trump is here saying, "I'll veto the NDAA unless you make it even worse! Then I'll sign it!"

    What's there to like about that?
    Agree!!!

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    And it's interesting that Trump is tying NDAA to Section 230.

    What do the two have anything to do with each other?

    So now if Congress goes along with him and passes an NDAA that includes termination of Section 230, so that he will sign it, we'll get two bad things for the price of one. Trump is here saying, "I'll veto the NDAA unless you make it even worse! Then I'll sign it!"

    What's there to like about that?
    A good part of Trump's base is pro war and anti free market.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    A good part of Trump's base is pro war and anti free market.
    I didn't know it was anti-free market to allow big tech companies to be sued.
    THE SQUAD of RPF
    1. enhanced_deficit - Paid Troll / John Bolton book promoter
    2. Devil21 - LARPing Wizard, fake magical script reader
    3. Firestarter - Tax Troll; anti-tax = "criminal behavior"
    4. TheCount - Comet Pizza Pedo Denier <-- sick

    @Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF =troll:

    Who spends this much time copy/pasting the same recycled links, photos/talking points.

    7 yrs/25k posts later RPF'ers still respond to this troll

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    I didn't know it was anti-free market to allow big tech companies to be sued.
    Then, by the same token, are you also unaware that it's anti-second-amendment to make gun companies liable for crimes people commit using guns they made?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yes. It would spell the end of RonPaulForums.com. Most of the people who post here don't get it. The owners don't get it. The mods don't get it. Everyone thinks "We'll just get rid of big bad Facebook." Nope. Wrong. Every website that has moderated user supplied content could be sued over that user supplied content. So..either RonPaulForums.com would have to end all moderation (I wouldn't cry over that) or face litigation if someone libeled someone else, or....just close up shop. People are like "But Facebook is different because they are CIA funded." Actually....that's not true. I looked into it. Peter Thiel (Trump supporter) gave Facebook its VC and he is connected to a company that is connected to the CIA. "Oh...but it's different because Facebook pretends to be neutral and RPF does not." But....that's not what the law says. And here's the kicker. Even without Section 230, Facebook will find away around liability. Look at when Tucker Carlson and Fox News got sued for libel. They got around liability not but using Section 230, but by claiming that Tucker "really isn't news" and so shouldn't be considered factual.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

    So...why couldn't Facebook say "Our website shouldn't be considered news?" Newsflash...they CAN use that defense! Getting rid of Section 230 will help no one.
    I completely disagree, they are going after social media and MSN. It is about removing the protections they are using to interfere with an election and censor (block) any opposing voice.. RPL forums have nothing to do with this. They aren't targeting moderated forums that promote liberty....lol.....they are targeting the communists!!!
    Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.
    Thomas Jefferson



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by showpan View Post
    I completely disagree, they are going after social media and MSN. It is about removing the protections they are using to interfere with an election and censor (block) any opposing voice.. RPL forums have nothing to do with this. They aren't targeting moderated forums that promote liberty....lol.....they are targeting the communists!!!
    Any given tech company can only censor what gets put on its own property, just like what RPF does.

    If there's a market for a similar venue where the views that Facebook, Twitter, Google, Youtube, etc., censor will be allowed, then nothing should stop someone from investing in such a thing.

    Meanwhile, if those companies want to do exactly what you just described with their own property, that is their right. Just like it is for the owners of RPF.

    Notably, while you asserted that jmdrake was wrong in what he said, nothing you said actually indicates any way that he is wrong. Right now, section 230 protects the owners of RPF from being held liable for the posts that individual posters here make on their website, just like it protects Facebook, etc.
    Last edited by Invisible Man; 12-13-2020 at 04:53 PM.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yes. It would spell the end of RonPaulForums.com. Most of the people who post here don't get it. The owners don't get it. The mods don't get it. Everyone thinks "We'll just get rid of big bad Facebook." Nope. Wrong. Every website that has moderated user supplied content could be sued over that user supplied content. So..either RonPaulForums.com would have to end all moderation (I wouldn't cry over that) or face litigation if someone libeled someone else, or....just close up shop. People are like "But Facebook is different because they are CIA funded." Actually....that's not true. I looked into it. Peter Thiel (Trump supporter) gave Facebook its VC and he is connected to a company that is connected to the CIA. "Oh...but it's different because Facebook pretends to be neutral and RPF does not." But....that's not what the law says. And here's the kicker. Even without Section 230, Facebook will find away around liability. Look at when Tucker Carlson and Fox News got sued for libel. They got around liability not but using Section 230, but by claiming that Tucker "really isn't news" and so shouldn't be considered factual.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

    So...why couldn't Facebook say "Our website shouldn't be considered news?" Newsflash...they CAN use that defense! Getting rid of Section 230 will help no one.
    I believe the intended angle and interesting part of this thread was about Trump potentially vetoing the NDAA, not so much the reason why he is threatening it.

    As far as your accusation at the beginning of your post, do you have any evidence of this accusation? Has an owner, admin or moderator posted something about Section 230 that would make you believe that?

    So let me start right now and play devil's advocate on Section 230: since when is repealing a law a bad thing? Don't we need less laws and regulations? Are specific exclusionary laws to protect an entity from a frivolous lawsuit necessary? How many itemized laws do we need to protect society from legal nonsense?

    Isn't it the intention and duty of the court system to throw out nonsense claims? Should an automotive manufacturer be (successfully) sued for a drunk driver getting in an accident? Should a person be able to successfully sue a pencil manufacturer if they poke their eye out? Do we need to pass laws to protect such manufacturers from those specific lawsuits?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate. - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post

    So let me start right now and play devil's advocate on Section 230: since when is repealing a law a bad thing? Don't we need less laws and regulations? Are specific exclusionary laws to protect an entity from a frivolous lawsuit necessary? How many itemized laws do we need to protect society from legal nonsense?

    Haha...you beat me to my answer. Exactly, why would getting rid of laws and regulations be such a bad thing?

    When you join this forum, are you not also agreeing to abide by the rules set forth. Moderators do that job already. Why would I need the goobernant to protect me from something YOU have written in an open forum?

    The law as it stands now is garbage as it is protecting Facebook, Twitter and Google as they blatantly interfere in an election.
    Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.
    Thomas Jefferson

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I believe the intended angle and interesting part of this thread was about Trump potentially vetoing the NDAA, not so much the reason why he is threatening it.

    As far as your accusation at the beginning of your post, do you have any evidence of this accusation? Has an owner, admin or moderator posted something about Section 230 that would make you believe that?
    LOL that you are calling that an "accusation." You aren't on trial. I do know that YOU have made posts in the past that show a gross misunderstanding of Section 230. The owners may not share your opinion.

    So let me start right now and play devil's advocate on Section 230: since when is repealing a law a bad thing? Don't we need less laws and regulations? Are specific exclusionary laws to protect an entity from a frivolous lawsuit necessary? How many itemized laws do we need to protect society from legal nonsense?
    Using your "logic" the law that shields gun manufacturers from liability would is a law that needs to be repealed. There's absolutely no difference. In the case of Section 230, IT PROTECTS RONPAULFORUMS.COM FROM LIABILITY! If you think it only protects big tech companies from liability then you don't understand what the law does and you should find out. Section 230 protects any website that allows user submitted content from liability based on that user submitted content. So if someone comes on here and posts some new Alex Jones conspiracy video about Sandy Hook, Alex Jones can be sued, the person who put up the video can possibly sued, but RonPaulForums.com and its owners cannot be sued unless the owners were somehow involved in putting the video up. A website like RonPaulForums.com or Facebook.com or YouTube.com should not be liable for the content of a video just because they chose to moderate and/or remove other videos. Really taking away Section 230 protection would make a bad censorship situation even WORSE.

    Isn't it the intention and duty of the court system to throw out nonsense claims? Should an automotive manufacturer be (successfully) sued for a drunk driver getting in an accident? Should a person be able to successfully sue a pencil manufacturer if they poke their eye out? Do we need to pass laws to protect such manufacturers from those specific lawsuits?
    Have you ever actually been involved in a costly lawsuit? Because if you had I don't think you would take that caviler of a position. The risk of a law suit isn't just the risk of losing. It's also the risk of exorbitant legal fees even if you win. The reason certain laws exist is to make sure that it's clear what is and is not a nonsense claim. You like the idea of judges legislating from the bench? Why do you think a person in a black robe is the only one who can decide whether or not a claim is nonsense? There are all sorts of laws that limit liability. Take statute of limitations for example. The word "statute" is right in the title. There are some lawsuits that you can't bring if you wait more than 1 year or in some cases 3 years or in some cases 7 years. Would you rather judges just make this up on the fly instead there being a statute?

    Back to the actual issue at hand. I think it's a good thing that RonPaulForums.com has the right to moderate content and even ban users without fear of lawsuit for not deleting every possible libelous post. Do you agree with that statement yes or no? Would you rather someone be able to sue you over some post that you might should have deleted but didn't for whatever reason, yes or no? Would you really just want to take your chances, possibly have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees which you won't get back even if you win just on the off chance that Facebook MIGHT get sued?

    Again, there is liability protection for gun manufactures because the threat of lawsuit even if the project (the gun) is not defective is very real. But don't worry. If you are against laws that limit liability, I am sure the Biden/Harris administration will grant you your wish and allow gun manufacturers to be sued.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    LOL that you are calling that an "accusation." You aren't on trial. I do know that YOU have made posts in the past that show a gross misunderstanding of Section 230. The owners may not share your opinion.
    ...
    Got a specific quote or grievance? I don't know what posts you are referring to.

    Using your "logic" the law that shields gun manufacturers from liability would is a law that needs to be repealed. There's absolutely no difference. In the case of Section 230, IT PROTECTS RONPAULFORUMS.COM FROM LIABILITY! If you think it only protects big tech companies from liability then you don't understand what the law does and you should find out. Section 230 protects any website that allows user submitted content from liability based on that user submitted content. So if someone comes on here and posts some new Alex Jones conspiracy video about Sandy Hook, Alex Jones can be sued, the person who put up the video can possibly sued, but RonPaulForums.com and its owners cannot be sued unless the owners were somehow involved in putting the video up. A website like RonPaulForums.com or Facebook.com or YouTube.com should not be liable for the content of a video just because they chose to moderate and/or remove other videos. Really taking away Section 230 protection would make a bad censorship situation even WORSE.



    Have you ever actually been involved in a costly lawsuit? Because if you had I don't think you would take that caviler of a position. The risk of a law suit isn't just the risk of losing. It's also the risk of exorbitant legal fees even if you win. The reason certain laws exist is to make sure that it's clear what is and is not a nonsense claim. You like the idea of judges legislating from the bench? Why do you think a person in a black robe is the only one who can decide whether or not a claim is nonsense? There are all sorts of laws that limit liability. Take statute of limitations for example. The word "statute" is right in the title. There are some lawsuits that you can't bring if you wait more than 1 year or in some cases 3 years or in some cases 7 years. Would you rather judges just make this up on the fly instead there being a statute?

    Back to the actual issue at hand. I think it's a good thing that RonPaulForums.com has the right to moderate content and even ban users without fear of lawsuit for not deleting every possible libelous post. Do you agree with that statement yes or no? Would you rather someone be able to sue you over some post that you might should have deleted but didn't for whatever reason, yes or no? Would you really just want to take your chances, possibly have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees which you won't get back even if you win just on the off chance that Facebook MIGHT get sued?

    Again, there is liability protection for gun manufactures because the threat of lawsuit even if the project (the gun) is not defective is very real. But don't worry. If you are against laws that limit liability, I am sure the Biden/Harris administration will grant you your wish and allow gun manufacturers to be sued.
    You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. You are just ranting at me. Perhaps you are just ranting to be ranting?

    In case you haven't noticed, much of the conversation on this forum is about how people would like things to be, not how they are. And yes, I believe that the entire legal system is screwed up beyond repair. Liability is just a specific case in a total failure.

    If you are trying to convince me of the value and need for high priced lawyers because of a failed legal system that requires more laws to protect everyone from frivolous lawsuits from lawyers, you are barking up the wrong tree.

    There is no rational explanation for a liability lawsuit to succeed against a gun manufacturer for a product which functions as advertised. Having to create new laws to protect gun manufacturers is putting a band-aid on a buckshot wound to the gut. The problem is much bigger than gun manufacturers or internet forums. And creating specific laws to protect specific special interests propagates corrupt cronyism.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate. - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by showpan View Post
    I completely disagree, they are going after social media and MSN. It is about removing the protections they are using to interfere with an election and censor (block) any opposing voice.. RPL forums have nothing to do with this. They aren't targeting moderated forums that promote liberty....lol.....they are targeting the communists!!!
    Disagree all you want but you are just showing you don't understand how laws work. Do you support "red flag laws?" Those who support them say "They are just going after the crazy people." You have been sold a lie and you've bought it. Section 230 protects any website owner that has user generated content. RonPaulForums.com has user generated content. If Section 230 was repeal then RonPaulForums.com could be liable. If you just wanted to go after "social media and MSN" then instead of repealing Section 230, you would need to replace it with a law that specifically went after "social media and MSN." By the way, I'm assuming you mean "main stream news" by MSN? MAINSTREAM NEWS IS NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 230! Publishers are already liable for libel. Look at the Nick Sandman case. CNN was successfully sued for publishing false statements about the young man in the MAGA hat. But notice that Nick Sandman didn't sue YouTube or Facebook even though there was a lot of commentary on the Nick Sandman case pro and con. Should YouTube have needed to go through and delete every video mentioning Nick Sandman on the off chance that one of them might have be libelous? If that had been the case then the ONLY stories about Nick Sandman would have been those in the mainstream news! A few weeks later there was the Jussie Smollet fake hate crime story. Citizen journalists on YouTube were the first to completely debunk his lies at a time when the mainstream media was treating him like a victim. Now look at the potential liability. There was no liability for the MSM pushing Smollet's lies. (Smollet never named a particular person so there was nobody with standing to bring a suit). But those who were posting on YouTube "It looks like Smollet is lying" could have been sued if he had been telling the truth. Do you think YouTube should have been liable for allowing them to question his story?

    Lastly there are BETTER WAYS TO GO AFTER FACEBOOK! Zuckerberg has likely violated antitrust laws by communicating with Google and Twitter about deplatforming people and there are justice department investigations looking into his mergers with Instagram and WhatsApp. That's where the action is.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #23
    When calling Section 230 a law or regulation, it may be helpful to see the actual relevant text in question:
    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.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

    As I read it, this is a law that sets limits on the government, not the people.

    Other laws that do that include the ten constitutional amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    It seems to me that a general desire for the repeal of laws should not necessarily be taken to include laws of that type.

    On the other hand, whereas Section 230 limits what the government can do with respect to the enforcement of other laws, I think it would be fair to say that if all those other laws were repealed, then Section 230 would need to as well. But as long as those other laws exist that give the federal government the power to tyrannize us by limiting what speech we can propagate on the internet, then an accompanying provision to those laws that places limits on those powers seems to me to be a good thing. Getting rid of that limitation that restrains the government, while keeping in place the powers that were being restrained is a recipe for great abuse of power.
    Last edited by Invisible Man; 12-13-2020 at 05:10 PM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Got a specific quote or grievance? I don't know what posts you are referring to.
    Each post you make on the subject shows a lack of understanding including this one.

    You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. You are just ranting at me. Perhaps you are just ranting to be ranting?
    You are entitled to your own wrong opinion.

    In case you haven't noticed, much of the conversation on this forum is about how people would like things to be, not how they are. And yes, I believe that the entire legal system is screwed up beyond repair. Liability is just a specific case in a total failure.
    Well one good thing about the legal system right now is Section 230 of the CDA.

    If you are trying to convince me of the value and need for high priced lawyers because of a failed legal system that requires more laws to protect everyone from frivolous lawsuits from lawyers, you are barking up the wrong tree.
    That's not at all what I said. I am saying that Section 230 lessens the need for high priced lawyers. Trust me, if I was acting in my own self interest I would WANT Section 230 repealed.

    There is no rational explanation for a liability lawsuit to succeed against a gun manufacturer for a product which functions as advertised. Having to create new laws to protect gun manufacturers is putting a band-aid on a buckshot wound to the gut. The problem is much bigger than gun manufacturers or internet forums. And creating specific laws to protect specific special interests propagates corrupt cronyism.
    It's not a "new law." It's a current law. Under current law gun manufacturers are specifically protected from liability. Do you want that repealed yes or no? It's a yes or no question.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Each post you make on the subject shows a lack of understanding including this one.

    You are entitled to your own wrong opinion.
    ...
    "You do not know what you are talking about" is not a valid argument in any setting. It's a personal attack. And I'd dare say that you are making many false assumptions about what other people are thinking.

    What specifically is your issue, with a quote?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's not a "new law." It's a current law. Under current law gun manufacturers are specifically protected from liability. Do you want that repealed yes or no? It's a yes or no question.
    Ah, OK, there we have a specific question. In an ideal world, I would rather not have crony laws that protect very specific people, companies, businesses or industries from a flawed legal system.

    In the current real world, I suppose the PLCAA is necessary to protect the 2nd Amendment from activist judges who hate the Bill of Rights, and disregard the law and all oaths they take to push their political agenda.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate. - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    "You do not know what you are talking about" is not a valid argument in any setting. It's a personal attack. And I'd dare say that you are making many false assumptions about what other people are thinking.

    What specifically is your issue, with a quote?
    Ummmmm....no. Telling someone that doesn't know what they are talking about that they don't know what they are talking about is not an attack. Sorry if you feel attacked. But nobody knows everything. There are areas where I don't know what I'm talking about either.

    Ah, OK, there we have a specific question.
    I've made several specific questions. You've just ignored most of them.

    In an ideal world, I would rather not have crony laws that protect very specific people, companies, businesses or industries from a flawed legal system.

    In the current real world, I suppose the PLCAA is necessary to protect the 2nd Amendment from activist judges who hate the Bill of Rights, and disregard the law and all oaths they take to push their political agenda.
    Well in the current real world, Section 230 of the CDA allows RonPaulForums.com to exist. In the current real world if it was repealed, Facebook, Google and Twitter would find ways to dismiss lawsuits the same way Tucker Carlson was able to get a libel lawsuit dismissed, by claiming that he wasn't "real news" and wasn't to be taken seriously, this despite the fact that he has repeatedly said that he wanted Facebook and Twitter to face the same liability he faces (which is zero). Those megacorps can come up with the money to get lawsuits dismissed as long as they aren't as over the top stupid as CNN was with Sandman. And, like I said. You are free to disagree with me. You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion, based on having actually read Section 230 of the CDA, is that the opinion you have put forward in your own words, no I'm not "making false assumptions about what people are thinking", is wrong. Now, if what you are thinking is different than what you are saying then...okay. But my pointing out the issues with what you are saying is not a personal attack.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 12-13-2020 at 06:26 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #27
    Here is the language of the Section 230 of the communications decency act.

    (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
    (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
    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.

    (2)Civil liability
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

    (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

    (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]


    So. For those who think Section 230 should be repealed, answer the following specific questions.

    1) Why do you think that websites should be considered "publishers" of user generated content?

    2) Why do you think websites should be liable for actions restricting "access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected?"

    3) What exactly is the liability you think will result on the websites you detest (Facebook, Twitter etc) if Section 230 is terminated?

    4) What protections do you think will remain for websites you like (RonPaulForums.com for example) if Section 230 is terminated?

    5) Do you understand what is meant "judge made law" and do you think laws that restrict judicial activism are necessarily bad?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Well in the current real world, Section 230 of the CDA allows RonPaulForums.com to exist. In the current real world if it was repealed, Facebook, Google and Twitter would find ways to dismiss lawsuits the same way Tucker Carlson was able to get a libel lawsuit dismissed, by claiming that he wasn't "real news" and wasn't to be taken seriously, this despite the fact that he has repeatedly said that he wanted Facebook and Twitter to face the same liability he faces (which is zero). Those megacorps can come up with the money to get lawsuits dismissed as long as they aren't as over the top stupid as CNN was with Sandman. And, like I said. You are free to disagree with me. You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion, based on having actually read Section 230 of the CDA, is that the opinion you have put forward in your own words, no I'm not "making false assumptions about what people are thinking", is wrong. Now, if what you are thinking is different than what you are saying then...okay. But my pointing out the issues with what you are saying is not a personal attack.
    We must be talking right past each other, because I really don't see where you are addressing something specific I said, and have an opinion contrary to it. And I don't disagree with anything you just said, although I might word it slightly differently and not use the term “allow”. @DamianTV can explain.

    I.e. you said “Section 230 of the CDA allows RonPaulForums.com to exist”. I agree that Section 230 provides some liability protection for RPF. But RPF could exist quite nicely without Section 230.

    Under that scenario, it is possible that a frivolous lawsuit could shut it down at some point, with the complicity of a corrupt legal system. And in the past year or two, the possibility that a political minority would be censored and eliminated by the establishment via the courts is greater than ever. Facebook would probably file the lawsuit. So yes, it is valuable to internet forums for Section 230 to continue to exist. It’s redundant, and shouldn't need to exist, but it is helpful given this insane world.

    As far as how Section 230 applies to Facebook and Twitter, I don't believe that I have directly posted on that, thus I would like to see the specific post that you disagree with.

    And back to the OP, would it be good for Trump to veto the NDAA? Yes or no question.
    Last edited by Brian4Liberty; 12-14-2020 at 12:59 PM.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate. - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    We must be talking right past each other, because I really don't see where you are addressing something specific I said, and have an opinion contrary to it. And I don't disagree with anything you just said, although I might word it slightly differently and not use the term “allow”. @DamianTV can explain.

    I.e. you said “Section 230 of the CDA allows RonPaulForums.com to exist”. I agree that Section 230 provides some liability protection for RPF. But RPF could exist quite nicely without Section 230.

    Under that scenario, it is possible that a frivolous lawsuit could shut it down at some point, with the complicity of a corrupt legal system. And in the past year or two, the possibility that a political minority would be censored and eliminated by the establishment via the courts is greater than ever. Facebook would probably file the lawsuit. So yes, it is valuable to internet forums for Section 230 to continue to exist. It’s redundant, and shouldn't need to exist, but it is helpful given this insane world.

    As far as how Section 230 applies to Facebook and Twitter, I don't believe that I have directly posted, thus I would like to see the specific post that you disagree with.

    And back to the OP, would it be good for Trump to veto the NDAA? Yes or no question.
    LOL. Okay. Yes. Now here's the qualification. If the ONLY reason he's vetoing the NDAA is because it's not anti-liberty enough (and demanding a Section 230 repeal means it's not anti-liberty enough), and if the veto gets overridden, (and it got overridden), then the veto is worse than meaningless. Trump has propagated the anti-liberty myth that we need to get rid of Section 230 while not accomplishing stopping the NDAA. So...maybe that's a no.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  34. #30
    I think there is something KEY happening in this thread.

    When we have a Majority, we protect the Equal Rights of Minorities to have an Equal Voice.

    When the pro govt labeled people have the Majority, they are the ONLY ones with a "Right" to speak and NO ONE ELSE can express ANY opinion that differs from the assigned narrative. Of course the "Majority" is not truly a majority as they only parrot the ideas of a very small group or singular person. Thus, even as a Majority, if they fail to repeat their own narrative, they are immediately cast out and treated as we have been for a very long time. Their idea of "Majority" is nothing more than Slavery Popularity.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Donald Trump Teases Veto of FISA Bill
    By Warlord in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-07-2020, 04:36 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-11-2019, 02:46 PM
  3. Trump Should Veto Congress Foolish New Sanctions Bill
    By goldenequity in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-29-2017, 02:42 AM
  4. Mr. Trump: Veto This Bill! - Sanctions Lead To War
    By goldenequity in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-25-2017, 11:56 AM
  5. Obama Threatens to Veto His Own Defense Bill Over F-22 Funding
    By disorderlyvision in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-21-2009, 06:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •