Trump implicates Scarborough in murder.

[little_monkey]

I'd hate to see it happen because of the long term implications but Twitter, Facebook and the like are almost daring the government to take action here.

I would love to see stringent regulations as no one should have the power to defame with impunity.

[Mountain Man]

Well, it seems that Twitter has gone from tweaking the President's nose with a fact an opinion check, to full censorship.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...ying-violence/

[firstfloor]

You think Dems are any different? When you get to the "top", it's all about control -- from EITHER side.

[Cow Poke]

There is nobody like Trump in the Dems camp,

There is nobody like Aunt Nancy in the Republican camp.... and... the little man with the big bug eyes....

[Cow Poke]

I would love to see stringent regulations as no one should have the power to defame with impunity.

One of the problems with a free speech principal.... each side wants their OWN free speech, but the other guy should be muzzled. Ya can't have it both ways.

[little_monkey]

One of the problems with a free speech principal.... each side wants their OWN free speech, but the other guy should be muzzled. Ya can't have it both ways.

It's not a question of having both ways, but if someone is defaming you, don't you want the ability to bring a lawsuit and stop that defamation? That's how it is with the printing press. Why should it be different with social media like Twitter or Facebook??? Their platform IS the printing press and should be in the same category. No special privileges...

[Cow Poke]

Principle, not principal. (my bad)

It's not a question of having both ways, but if someone is defaming you, don't you want the ability to bring a lawsuit and stop that defamation? That's how it is with the printing press. Why should it be different with social media like Twitter or Facebook??? Their platform IS the printing press and should be in the same category. No special privileges...

I guess I was put off by your "stringent regulations", but you clarified (and I didn't add that factor) "with impunity".

So, yeah, if somebody is making false claims for the purpose of causing actual harm.... see, that's the way the law works. It would be a civil suit, in which the plaintiff would have to demonstrate actual harm, not just "he's being mean".

We're wired toward "free speech", and politicians in the US have often been even uglier than contemporary politicians in attacking one another - we seem to accept that as part of the game.

So, what did you have in mind, specifically?

[Cow Poke]

....That's how it is with the printing press. Why should it be different with social media like Twitter or Facebook??? Their platform IS the printing press and should be in the same category. No special privileges...

On this ---
A) to date, Facebook and Twitter have been "platforms" for social engagement and interchange, not "content providers". They have not attempted, in the past, to regulate free speech.
2) the "printing press" has wide variants - liberal, conservative, left wing, right wing..... there is not a monopoly on the news - one can choose to "change channels" or "buy a different paper".
C) the social media PLATFORMS have not been in the regulating business -- when they make that move, they are exercising censorship, and should, themselves, be liable for lawsuits
It's a mess

[little_monkey]

Principle, not principal. (my bad)



I guess I was put off by your "stringent regulations", but you clarified (and I didn't add that factor) "with impunity".

So, yeah, if somebody is making false claims for the purpose of causing actual harm.... see, that's the way the law works. It would be a civil suit, in which the plaintiff would have to demonstrate actual harm, not just "he's being mean".

That's true for the printing press. But the law passed in 1996 exempts social media from any lawsuit of any kind whatsoever. That's what I am talking about. And that should be scrapped.

We're wired toward "free speech", and politicians in the US have often been even uglier than contemporary politicians in attacking one another - we seem to accept that as part of the game.

So, what did you have in mind, specifically?

And that is the result of this 1996 law protecting social media from any lawsuits. Get rid of that privilege and you will get a more civil discourse.

[Cow Poke]

That's true for the printing press. But the law passed in 1996 exempts social media from any lawsuit of any kind whatsoever. That's what I am talking about. And that should be scrapped.

Hmmmmm..... then that puts a tremendous burden on them to "be fair", and.... how bout helping me out with this --- that law exempts the social media PLATFORM, not those who post thereon, yes?

And that is the result of this 1996 law protecting social media from any lawsuits. Get rid of that privilege and you will get a more civil discourse.

OK, splain that, please... would it force the social media platform to regulate who posts what? I'm confused.

[little_monkey]

On this ---
A) to date, Facebook and Twitter have been "platforms" for social engagement and interchange, not "content providers". They have not attempted, in the past, to regulate free speech.
2) the "printing press" has wide variants - liberal, conservative, left wing, right wing..... there is not a monopoly on the news - one can choose to "change channels" or "buy a different paper".
C) the social media PLATFORMS have not been in the regulating business -- when they make that move, they are exercising censorship, and should, themselves, be liable for lawsuits
It's a mess

You don't seem to understand that there is a special law protecting social media from any lawsuit. None of the other media has this special protection. Should the New York Times publish an article from Mr. X defaming you, you can launch a lawsuit against Mr. X and the New York Times. If Mr. X does on Twitter, you can't. See the problem.

[Cow Poke]

You don't seem to understand that there is a special law protecting social media from any lawsuit.

Which is why I was asking QUESTIONS.

None of the other media has this special protection. Should the New York Times publish an article from Mr. X defaming you, you can launch a lawsuit against Mr. X and the New York Times. If Mr. X does on Twitter, you can't. See the problem.

Because, in my feeble understanding, the print media are CONTENT PROVIDERS, not open platforms.

I'll look up 'the law' when I have time -- got a meeting shortly.

[little_monkey]

Which is why I was asking QUESTIONS.



Because, in my feeble understanding, the print media are CONTENT PROVIDERS, not open platforms.

I'll look up 'the law' when I have time -- got a meeting shortly.

Wow, so Mr. X goes on Twitter, defames in in every horrible way, and you can't sue him because a special law protects Twitter, and you're okay with that special law!? I hope it never happens to you, but you are now aware of what's going on in the US of A. Great country, isn't it...

[Cow Poke]

Wow,

I'm sorry, I thought we were having a civil discussion.

so Mr. X goes on Twitter, defames in in every horrible way, and you can't sue him because a special law protects Twitter, and you're okay with that special law!?

Actually, I fully admitted ignorance of that law, and promised to check it out.

I hope it never happens to you, but you are now aware of what's going on in the US of A. Great country, isn't it...

It IS a great country, and I'm blessed to live here. But, if you're just looking for a fight, I'll bow out.

[oxmixmudd]

On this ---
A) to date, Facebook and Twitter have been "platforms" for social engagement and interchange, not "content providers". They have not attempted, in the past, to regulate free speech.
2) the "printing press" has wide variants - liberal, conservative, left wing, right wing..... there is not a monopoly on the news - one can choose to "change channels" or "buy a different paper".
C) the social media PLATFORMS have not been in the regulating business -- when they make that move, they are exercising censorship, and should, themselves, be liable for lawsuits
It's a mess

I am curious why you would not also factor in the fact that when the president of the united states abuses a social media platform to propagate falsehoods or statements of libel, this pushes the problem to an untenable extreme. By not intervening in that case, social media is no longer merely an outlet for individuals, it becomes a propaganda arm of the state. If it is not allowed to editorialize as it were about such propaganda, it becomes a coerced propaganda arm of the state. In effect, the freedom of the press is nullified wrt that particular outlet's right to comment on what is being published by the state through the medium it provides.