video: https://youtu.be/dmrxD0WKn-Y
Fuck this bullshit. If it's illegal on the street, it's illegal online. Case closed end of story, no more censorship fight PERIOD.
Repeal the entire CDA. This law is basically a way of solving the problem of illegal content online, by making another problem. This law is unconstitutional at it's core. Here is how this issue should be handled:
If a user on a forum, app, or whatever posts illegal content, the webmaster must give away their IP address and any other info they have (email, username, phone number etc) to the proper cyber crimes division of law enforcement in their state. (if the user is behind a VPN etc then law enforcement must contact the VPN for the info! Yes they must! If foreign VPN wont divulge, then the issue must eventually rise to the level of compromising diplomatic relations with that country!)
If others discover the illegal content before the webmaster, they can report it to the police themselves, and the police would then have to contact the webmaster for the info. If needed, search warrants can be executed on webmasters who refuse to hand it over. If webmasters cannot be located then the web hosting provider should be contacted and asked for the webmaster's info. It just moves up the chain like anything else. Simple, constitutional, and eliminated the entire murk of bullshit caused by the CDA.
If a user on a forum, app or whatever posts content that the webmaster doesn't want on their site, it's the same as if someone in a store or bar says something the owner doesnt like. There are certain things that a store owner cannot refuse you service over, such as your political views, and other things that they can, such as you cursing out the clerk / other customers.
This whole thing has been purposefully confused and muddied by globohomo but in reality it is literally NO DIFFERENT than being on the street in public, with all the different websites being like different businesses. Other countries will have to figure out their own shit but WE have the Constitution. And if a user posts illegal content from another country, our law enforcement should contact theirs about it. And perhaps we could work something out! *edit: see WTFsocialismreally's comment below!
Oh, and if having sex in public is illegal, it's illegal on the internet. If whore houses are illegal, porn sites are illegal. If prostitution is illegal, onlyfans and cam whores are illegal. Poof, problem fucking solved LAWFULLY, clean and swift. Bye bye
The Constitution doesn't say anything about any of the things you are calling "illegal." The things you are calling illegal are illegal because of other laws. For example, sex in public is not addressed at all in the Constitution, nor should it be. Child molestation isn't addressed in the Constitution, nor should it be. It is not up to a Centralized Authority to address these issues. That is up to the people who it affects. The entire concept of ruling through a Centralized Authority for "the greater good" is The Lie that the Cabal uses to rule the whole world. They offer up their "good Rulers" and their "bad Rulers" to perpetuate the Grand Illusion, all the while they pull all the strings through the Centralized Authority they created.
The problem with the CDA is not that it allows Corporations to bypass laws that affect people in "the real world", the problem is in relying on a Centralized Authority to be addressing these things at all.
The Constitution was a Treaty between Sovereign States (where a "State" is itself problematic, but that's a larger scope of the problem). It was designed to address trade between States and to "provide for the common defense". I suggest that that in itself is problematic (again, a larger scope), but it gives an appreciation for what the Constitution is, and what it is not.
All of the amendments to the Constitution are ALL fuckery. There is SO MUCH FUCKERY in the Constitutional amendments it's ludicrous. I have spoken on this many times and won't belabor it here, but when people demand that the Centralized Authority should be doing "this" or "that" or that "such and such is unConstitutional" I just shake my head. That is what the Cabal wants you to think. That is the design of the Controlled Opposition of the system.
People think, "Let's get the Centralized Authority to address this issue the right way, so that my local life is correctly addressed."
This is impossible. If you, or someone you know are personally affected by a direct violation of someone's inalienable Rights, your locality should be addressing the issue. You and your neighbors should be the ones discussing what so and so did to someone's daughter, NOT the Centralized Authority. If people take responsibility for their own environment, and protect their own, the Centralized Authority won't be able to commit fuckery. By putting the power into the hands of "the ruler," you automatically lose, every time. This is the Great Fraud.
With regards to "our democracy," the real problem is not where the left and the right disagree, the real problem is where they agree. Everyone agrees that the Centralized Authority should retain the power "for the greater good". THAT is the fraud.
this has my mind working close to the metal. I'm saving this comment to study on
I don't see any of the faults you are claiming being in the OP....
It has always been about digital control. Every problem can be solved the common sense way or the way in which Cabal gets all the control.
However there is one legitimate problem that needs to be addressed, both in real life and online. Can you have a private business thats exclusive for a certain group of people, be it gender, political views etc? The answer should be YES. As long as that exclusivity is made clear from day 1 and you don't start off with allowing everyone initially, and then exclude groups you dont like once the club becomes a community landmark.
Same is true for places like dotwin and reddit etc. Each board needs to be able to exclude people based on any criteria, since they are communities. Without this, GAW would not be able to exist.
However, you cannot provide a service like, say Twitter, which is not meant to be a community, but rather for everyone - and then later on, once it becomes ubiquitous, you should not be able to throw our conservatives, or those who dont want their kids to be mutilated etc.
Section 230 is completely misconstrued. It is supposed to be to shield platforms from liability for what its users say and actions taken to moderate content. But the types of content are the ordinary 1a obscenity and the “prurient interest.” The same types of speech that government can constitutionally restrict. Using basic canons of statutory construction, all of the list must be construed consistently with one another - be of like kind. Going full politburo is not protected under this section no matter what is said to the contrary. This needs serious judicial attention at the highest level.
What speech can the government restrict again?
Here is the relevant portion:
(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).
I italicized the criteria. This is basically a restatement of SCOTUS case law on the first amendment. It has been held permissible to restrict obscenity/sexually oriented speech, fighting words, incitement of illegal activity, violent speech etc... I contend this statute was written with precisely that case law in mind. This law does NOT protect the type of behavior that these companies claim it does.
Is it constitutional?
It has been since the inception of the republic.
With you overall except this one:
No. Other countries are bound by their laws, and we are bound by ours. This paves the way for our country to police other countries, and also for other countries to police ours.
No one should be beholden to another country's laws --- period. This is a part of being a sovereign country, and we have no right to infringe on that sovereignty, just like they have no right to infringe on ours.
We need to stop being so concerned about controlling the reins of other countries and get focused on protecting our own freedoms. Anything can become illegal, as we've witnessed. I will not be beholden to that, and I will righteously reject any ideal that leads us down that path, liberal or conservative.
Agreed. Perhaps a more creative method of handling unlawful acts committed by foreigners on US platforms could be figured out
I live in Russia. Russia has dealt with US social media that allows crimes by banning those social media. So Twitter and FB aren’t accessible from Russian IPs. That protects people. There is an understanding that many people will have a VPN. But it still draws a boundary. Just tossing that into the conversation for how this can look.
Honestly if we enforced our own laws (while also trimming down the fat) with things like evicting child trafficking from our lives as an example, other countries would probably follow suit.
I think that ultimately the law should be for the administrators of these boards/sites to make a good faith effort to report it to authorities and work with them to provide correct information.
Maybe that'd be complicated, but they bear responsibility for keeping their part of the internet clean.
But I don't believe that our government should do anything more than forward that information to the correct authorities in other countries on request from these board administrators. I don't think that they should be expending resources to police the planet otherwise.
We have so many problems at home that need to be resolved and other countries need to be held to account by their citizenry too..it can't all fall on the American people.
Good faith is exceedingly rare, and nuanced thinking is rarer still, imo. I know I have much room for improvement. But it is essential to be able to trust.
Yes. How would you like it if you posted "I drank a beer today" and the Saudi Police accused you of hate speech?
You are going into a huge slippery slope with the last bit.
Remember, the attitude you have towards porn, middle eastern subhumans have towards a woman's face. You pretty much want a theocracy to decide what is moral or whatever. You are salivating at the idea of making society just in your eyes.
Someone said below, who decides what is illegal?
You decide overnight that jazz is illegal but the pottery is not, so the government just to make life easier, bans art as a whole. That is what you are subconsciously asking for. You can't expect the freedom to discuss counter culture politics or alternative medicine online but tell a grown woman she can't show off her tits
Prostitution isnt federally illegal. Most states have outlawed it but not all. That means it wouldnt be a federal crime to have a porn site and states would have to be the ones prosecuting. But states already can make their own decency laws or expand the definition of prostitution to include porn, this has always been within their power. So far they just havent
What's illegal? Who decides on what is illegal?
Voters in un-rigged elections.
As long as it doesn't violate our rights listed in the Constitution....
Definitely this is a really mess and I do not know frankly how are going to deal with this. These people are destroying our nation and other nations just to keep us quiet about everything we see. This is getting more problematic by the day.