Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
He, like you, was trying to create a nexus between Twitter banning him and the First Amendment for the sake of his case. It was the only chance he had, but the court was clear that no such nexus exists.
|
Is this your new strategy? Keep repeating the same lie, and eventually, folks will start to believe it?
I'm doing no such thing, and I've clarified that several times now. I've posted where Facebook has alternatively referred to themselves as a publisher on one hand, and a platform on the other. Though I can't predict the future, this "split personality", treading on both sides of their 230 protections may unravel those same protections. To me, as I've said more than once in this thread, it's not a 1st Amendment issue.
It's YOU who keeps pulling this back to a 1st Amendment issue. So, congratulations. You've once again won the argument you appear to be having with yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
What we have here is a 1996 law applying analog-era First Amendment law to digital-era communications platforms that was written by the type of people who referred to the Internet as a "series of tubes."
|
There you go again. 230 is not about the 1st Amendment. It's about liability protection for internet platforms. But, you go boy!