This will be an interesting lawsuit.

I like it, and I’m for free speech. But we forget that, with our rights, come responsibilities.

[tw]1657356605573287936?s=46&t=o_-92Ldle66XHQBlJVUMFQ[/tw]

The reach of social media has really muddied up Freedom of Speech issues.

Technically Freedom of Speech does not mean that one can say whatever they want via a private businesses' publication unless one owns the business, however, the meaning of publication has been blurred with the law that says that social media companies are not responsible for what users post on their sites, this interpretation of the law is really just on judge's ruling and not written directly into the law itself.

Trapper Gus wrote:The reach of social media has really muddied up Freedom of Speech issues.

Technically Freedom of Speech does not mean that one can say whatever they want via a private businesses' publication unless one owns the business, however, the meaning of publication has been blurred with the law that says that social media companies are not responsible for what users post on their sites, this interpretation of the law is really just on judge's ruling and not written directly into the law itself.

I know it’s antiquated but it has passed through the court systems based on the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that social media companies are neither publishers nor platforms.

And it all started in the same way that streaming video started…you guessed it…porn!

Motown Spartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:The reach of social media has really muddied up Freedom of Speech issues.

Technically Freedom of Speech does not mean that one can say whatever they want via a private businesses' publication unless one owns the business, however, the meaning of publication has been blurred with the law that says that social media companies are not responsible for what users post on their sites, this interpretation of the law is really just on judge's ruling and not written directly into the law itself.

I know it’s antiquated but it has passed through the court systems based on the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that social media companies are neither publishers nor platforms.

And it all started in the same way that streaming video started…you guessed it…porn!

Yup, Section 230 protections for internet providers which are put in place to protect those providers.

Not porn, though that is part of it, but just to allow the internet to grow without lawsuit restrictions.

The lawsuit in the OP really is a long shot at bes

Not sure there is a better solution that "antiquated" law, unless the government decides to shut down most social media.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-explained-supreme-court-social-media

Trapper Gus wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

I know it’s antiquated but it has passed through the court systems based on the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that social media companies are neither publishers nor platforms.

And it all started in the same way that streaming video started…you guessed it…porn!

Yup, Section 230 protections for internet providers which are put in place to protect those providers.

Not porn, though that is part of it, but just to allow the internet to grow without lawsuit restrictions.

The lawsuit in the OP really is a long shot at bes

Not sure there is a better solution that "antiquated" law, unless the government decides to shut down most social media.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-explained-supreme-court-social-media

Porn was absolutely a big part of that act. And when I said “antiquated” I just meant that the legal grounds that has been used in the past for this type of argument was enacted years before social media existed the way we know it now.

Kinda like the right to bear arms.

Motown Spartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Yup, Section 230 protections for internet providers which are put in place to protect those providers.

Not porn, though that is part of it, but just to allow the internet to grow without lawsuit restrictions.

The lawsuit in the OP really is a long shot at bes

Not sure there is a better solution that "antiquated" law, unless the government decides to shut down most social media.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-explained-supreme-court-social-media

Porn was absolutely a big part of that act.  And when I said “antiquated” I just meant that the legal grounds that has been used in the past for this type of argument was enacted years before social media existed the way we know it now.  

Kinda like the right to bear arms.  

Porn was one of a number of issues, it stands out because its porn.  

Most of our laws are built on older laws.  If one reads an actual law passed by Congress it is full of references to laws passed before, such as "This modifies paragraph 6 of subsection b of section II of the "name of early act" of 1871 ...

Porn requires regulators to take a hard stance.

Turtleneck wrote:Porn requires regulators to take a hard stance.

They will never penetrate the deep cavernous possible way people could violate regulations

Can I sue forummotion for Greenway atrocious game threads that cost my mental state so dearly last year?

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Can I sue forummotion for Greenway atrocious game threads that cost my mental state so dearly last year?

If I was on the jury, for that case, the Greenway would be homeless, and you’d be hanging out with his wife at some of the best party spots in Italy. Just saying.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Can I sue forummotion for Greenway atrocious game threads that cost my mental state so dearly last year?

Wat? I rarely start game threads and when I do, it’s usually a winner.

DWags wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Can I sue forummotion for Greenway atrocious game threads that cost my mental state so dearly last year?

If I was on the jury, for that case, the Greenway would be homeless, and you’d be hanging out with his wife at some of the best party spots in Italy. Just saying.

Too late, dummy. I’ll be hanging out with Mrs. GreenWay in Iceland this summer.

Turtleneck wrote:Porn requires regulators to take a hard stance.

I knew you were going to pop up in this thread.

tGreenWay wrote:

DWags wrote:

If I was on the jury, for that case, the Greenway would be homeless, and you’d be hanging out with his wife at some of the best party spots in Italy. Just saying.

Too late, dummy. I’ll be hanging out with Mrs. GreenWay in Iceland this summer.

Idiot. All there is up there is ice.

DWags wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:



Too late, dummy. I’ll be hanging out with Mrs. GreenWay in Iceland this summer.

Idiot. All there is up there is ice.

At least my beverages will be cold.

tGreenWay wrote:

DWags wrote:

Idiot. All there is up there is ice.

At least my beverages will be cold.

Along with your shriveled up pee pee.

Motown Spartan wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:



At least my beverages will be cold.

Along with your shriveled up pee pee.

I WAS IN THE POOL!