Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: SAFETECH Act to reform section 230

  1. #1



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Well, now that's about the exact opposite of what is needed.

    lol - these politicians... Gotta hand it to them. There is literally no problem that they can't make worse.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Well, now that's about the exact opposite of what is needed.

    lol - these politicians... Gotta hand it to them. There is literally no problem that they can't make worse.
    I wasn't expecting Dem's to be doing 230 reform.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrp12 View Post
    I wasn't expecting Dem's to be doing 230 reform.
    Did you read this thing?? It's 230 reform in the wrong direction! Yikes.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Did you read this thing?? It's 230 reform in the wrong direction! Yikes.
    Yeah, i was sure with all the censorship republicans would want a say in the matter or at least make some noise over it.

  7. #6
    The FAQ says concerns that small sites will be sued out of existence are overblown because they have no money to pay in damages. No lawyer would take such a case.

    But the people doing the censoring have all the money in the world, and half the nation's lawyers on retainer. So how is that supposed to reassure me?
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    These days? That's always what has passed for conservatism.

    And exactly the same thing goes for (modern) liberalism, too.

    They just disagree about what should be forced upon whom.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrp12 View Post
    I wasn't expecting Dem's to be doing 230 reform.
    Why are you surprised? Biden and Trump want the same thing. The complete repeal of Section 230.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ms-com-goodbye!

    I've been trying over and over again to explain to people that the Trump attack on Section 230 was a Trojan horse.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Did you read this thing?? It's 230 reform in the wrong direction! Yikes.
    The only good direction on Section 230 "reform" is to leave it as it stands and attack big tech based on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It's the conspiracy to de-platform people across platforms that's the problem. Most people attacking Section 230 have no idea what section 230 really means. Section 230 doesn't give platforms license to censor content. They already and have ALWAYS done that. Section 230 answered the question "If platform X takes down pornographic or other objectionable material off its site, does it then become liable for ALL content posted on its site?" The only logical result from dinkering around with Section 230 is more censorship by the platforms AND the government. The big tech companies will be incentivized to censor more because there will be greater liability. Alex Jones got sued for liable because of Sandy Hook conspiracies which were also all over YouTube. Imagine the liability against YouTube if Section 230 hadn't been there? Do you think that would have led to more or less freedom on YouTube?

    Even Republican attempts at reform just make the problem worse. Marsha Blackburn only wants section 230 repeal for "big companies." Okay. But that means that big platforms will have a strong incentive to censor. Either censor everything or become Pornhub. Lindsey Graham put forward his proposal that takes away protection from liability if you censor political speech. But conservative political forums censor political speech! And I get the counter argument that people make up in their mind that "Well RonPaulForums.com states in its mission statement that it's political so that should protect it." Ummmm....no. It won't. In fact that mission statement brings it even more in line with the "publisher" role that opens one up to liability.
    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.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    The FAQ says concerns that small sites will be sued out of existence are overblown because they have no money to pay in damages. No lawyer would take such a case.

    But the people doing the censoring have all the money in the world, and half the nation's lawyers on retainer. So how is that supposed to reassure me?
    Forget being "sued out of existence." How about prison time? The Trump Twitter Troll Ricky Vaughn is already facing 10 years over an "illegal meme."

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-wrote-in-2016

    How much money do you think a federal prosecutor might spend on a small website?
    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.


Similar Threads

  1. Reform - not replace - Section 230
    By jmdrake in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-14-2020, 04:51 PM
  2. Conflict between Article 1 Section 8 and Section 10
    By Free Moral Agent in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 11:50 AM
  3. Ads On Each Section?
    By mport1 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2007, 01:00 AM

Posting Permissions

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