05 Jan 22
@averagejoe1 saidThose phrases aren't consistent with making money in your sleep
Hitler wasn’t comfortable with ‘Jude’ shops either, so he closed them down
In Vivify’s words, ‘permanently banned’, Brrrrrrrrr
Can libs use phrases like personal responsibility, self reliance, independence, autonomy, self direction in posting.? It would make things easier for conservatives to relate to.
05 Jan 22
@vivify saidOkay, fair enough.
This is simply exercising control over your own establishment.
If someone walks into a coffee shot spouting racist rhetoric, the shop owner is not violating free speech rights by kicking the racist out of the store. Same for Russ if he decides to ban such a person from RHP, and same for Twitter.
Let's change the hypothetical a little bit.
I come into the coffee shop on Monday and write "Joe stole my car" in chalk on the menu chalkboard under the menu. The owner rushes out and erases it and yells at me not to defame people on his chalkboard.
On Tuesday, I come into the same shop and write "Mary stole my bike" in chalk on the menu chalkboard under the menu. The owner rushes out, takes a look at what I wrote, turns around and walks back into his office. The text stays there for the rest of the day and all the regulars see it.
Is it so clear that the shop owner has not committed defamation against Mary?
05 Jan 22
@sh76 saidIt's not so clear whether that's defamation or not. Would be an interesting case.
Okay, fair enough.
Let's change the hypothetical a little bit.
I come into the coffee shop on Monday and write "Joe stole my car" in chalk on the menu chalkboard under the menu. The owner rushes out and erases it and yells at me not to defame people on his chalkboard.
On Tuesday, I come into the same shop and write "Mary stole my bike" in chalk on the menu chalkboard un ...[text shortened]... he regulars see it.
Is it so clear that the shop owner has not committed defamation against Mary?
Regardless of whether leaving such content is defamation, removing it would not be a violation of free speech.
06 Jan 22
@vivify saidRight, but calling that defamation and analogizing the shop to Twitter would essentially shut down Twitter, or at least force it to drastically change its model.
It's not so clear whether that's defamation or not. Would be an interesting case.
Regardless of whether leaving such content is defamation, removing it would not be a violation of free speech.
06 Jan 22
@sh76 saidHow do you know he took a look at it?
Okay, fair enough.
Let's change the hypothetical a little bit.
I come into the coffee shop on Monday and write "Joe stole my car" in chalk on the menu chalkboard under the menu. The owner rushes out and erases it and yells at me not to defame people on his chalkboard.
On Tuesday, I come into the same shop and write "Mary stole my bike" in chalk on the menu chalkboard un ...[text shortened]... he regulars see it.
Is it so clear that the shop owner has not committed defamation against Mary?
@sh76 saidWould it?
Right, but calling that defamation and analogizing the shop to Twitter would essentially shut down Twitter, or at least force it to drastically change its model.
If anything, you've proven why a business like Twitter would need the ability to manage content on its site. That shop owner in your example could get into legal trouble if he wasn't allowed to remove content on that board. It only strengthens Twitter's case for regulating posts.
@athousandyoung saidHe admits it. Video captured him looking at it. Customers testified. What's the difference? Twitter has access to all posts on the platform. If they argue they had no time to moderate it, that's one thing. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about conscious decisions to take down posts with one viewpoint and not another.
How do you know he took a look at it?
@vivify saidIf the owner never erased any messages, he could argue that the platform was simply open to anyone to write anything and so he had nothing to do with it. If he intentionally takes down some messages and not others, that's an implicit ratification of the messages he leaves up. If one of the messages he leaves up were defamatory, that would make the case against him stronger.
Would it?
If anything, you've proven why a business like Twitter would need the ability to manage content on its site. That shop owner in your example could get into legal trouble if he wasn't allowed to manage content on that board. It only strengthens Twitter's case for regulating posts.
@sh76 saidThis is the weakness in your argument. If he can be held liable for defamation (in this case, libel) then he is obligated to remove all possible instances of defamation; his bias is irrelevant, if that's the law.
If one of the messages he leaves up were defamatory, that would make the case against him stronger.
But if he has the choice of leaving some instances of libel and removing others, then he is clearly not legally responsible for anything written on the board in your example. So it doesn't matter if he leaves that defamatory message up or not.
^ That is the key to this issue. Either Twitter is legally required to remove defamatory content, or they aren't. If they have a choice, then it's no one else's business how they use that choice.
06 Jan 22
@shallow-blue saidVivify is correct. As much as you all hate it, the govt has no say. Such entities as the subjects of this thread can do what the hell they want to, .... look to the constitution for confirmation (you can find it on the internet).
The government cannot punish you. The owner of either the land or the soapbox very much can.
So yes, both Twitter and RHP are allowed to block you, even in the libertariard-riddled USA. Whether it would be worth their while is another question, but they definitively are allowed to, even in the Land Of The Free To Incite To Murder.
So, Kevin and I open up out own platform (I hope I used that word right) and get people rapping. Who here has a problem with that?? If I call Shav a faerie, is there some consequence for that, or does Shav just go to another website??? If Kev says MB is a slug and does not work for his money. can MB sue him on the Forum?
What is going on ?
@vivify saidI don't really believe in censorship or black listing because it can be too political.
If they don't, they should. Marjorie Taylor Green was permanently banned from Twitter for misinformation.
There's a certain inutile poster on this site who should get the same treatment.
the worst ever poster in here got tossed permanently and I was glad, but I would have preferred suspension.
also, one can avoid such a poster very easily. group think should not get their way on this issue
06 Jan 22
@wildgrass saidOk,, just trying to clarify, It is not that easy to ascertain what is true and what is not, and I am trying to 'draw out' matters such as this, as they are mentioned flippantly as if making such decisions (a lie or not a lie, a fact or not a fact) is a piece of cake. If they say such stupid things, I have been cloaked with the responsiblitiy of making it clear that it is, as you clearly state, practically impossible.
Joe, to be clear, vivify was not arguing that content providers should be 'viewpoint neutral' to avoid lawsuits based on content. That was sh76. Currently we have no standard to determine this, and I think it's practically impossible.
06 Jan 22
@AverageJoe1
Ok,, just trying to clarify, It is not that easy to ascertain what is true and what is not
----------------------
that's right, and if group think wants to push someone out the door, all they have to do
is *pretend* to be aggrieved and they get someone tossed. ME NO LIKE
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
06 Jan 22
@averagejoe1 saidYou're one of the worst offenders.
Ok,, just trying to clarify, It is not that easy to ascertain what is true and what is not, and I am trying to 'draw out' matters such as this, as they are mentioned flippantly as if making such decisions (a lie or not a lie, a fact or not a fact) is a piece of cake. If they say such stupid things, I have been cloaked with the responsiblitiy of making it clear that it is, as you clearly state, practically impossible.
06 Jan 22
@earl-of-trumps saidNeither extreme is good: either ban anyone you don't like or allow anyone to do anything they want.
I don't really believe in censorship or black listing because it can be too political.
the worst ever poster in here got tossed permanently and I was glad, but I would have preferred suspension.
also, one can avoid such a poster very easily. group think should not get their way on this issue
At the very least, the first option results in order where the second option only results in chaos. Imagine if all the worst posters on this site were all still here, allowed to run amok?