FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Through my years on this site one constant has been Mike's bad faith mode of discussing issues. In short, he's a liar like his orange daddy.

He is just a rabble grouser with no true convictions or ability to be honest with himself. Be careful though, he will quote from The Bible to prove you are a sinner besides being a radical liberal.

"‘Brevity’ is the soul of wit’ means that one can say a lot more by using the minimum of language to convey something. In other words, being brief is the essence of intelligence."

Obviously MSU banned William Shakephere books.

https://nosweatshakespeare.com/quote...e-soul-of-wit/

[finnbow]

A Trump-appointed judge dismissed Loudoun County, VA parents' lawsuit and in her ruling says AG Garland policy memo "does not label anyone a domestic terrorist, as the plaintiffs suggest."

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...r-granting-mtd

And here are 3 separate statements to Fox News from Kevin McCarthy making this same bogus accusation (which has been spread far and wide by Fox and other wingnut media and become an article of faith in the GOP).

“We are watching what’s happening in the country … parents that are being attacked by the attorney general saying that somehow they are terrorists because they want to go to school board meetings.”

— House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), interview on Fox News, April 25

“We’re going to investigate the attorney general. Why did he go after parents, and call them terrorists, simply because they wanted to go to a school board meeting?”

— McCarthy, interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, April 20

“The other thing that comes with a new [GOP] majority is you’re able to hold this administration accountable. We’re able to stand up to an attorney general who goes after parents and calls them terrorists if they want to go to a school board meeting.”

— McCarthy, interview on “Fox News Sunday,” April 17

The WashPost correctly called these statements lies (as a federal judge now has).

McCarthy is putting words in Garland’s mouth. Garland has never equated parents to terrorists, and in fact he told Congress he “can’t imagine” a circumstance under which that would happen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ts-terrorists/

Why doesn't Whell ever point out such things in this thread he started on "fake news" (that he created as a service to this board)?

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Why doesn't Whell ever point out such things in this thread he started on "fake news" (that he created as a service to this board)?

Simple. Because the only thing he ever does here is regurgitate Reich-wing talking points.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Simple. Because the only thing he ever does here is regurgitate Reich-wing talking points.

You may have a point there. It's interesting that even though a study found that Fox News viewers know less about the news than those viewing no news at all, Whell doesn't ever take issue with any of their innumerable and daily fake news stories.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I know that too. What then explains the Right and their obsession with calling it a First Amendment free speech issue? You yourself in this very thread have referred to it as censorship and muzzling free speech, both implicating First Amendment free speech provisions.

You'd have to ask them why. My mention of First Amendment was in the context of a platform deleting content that would otherwise be in line with platform moderation rules, and I can only conjecture whether that would jeopardize 230 protections, though I imagine a tort lawyer would try to sue if the circumstances were right. However, let some nutcase run over a teenager with a car, and have discussion of motive or target by the perp found on Twitter, who deleted other questionable content but not that of the perp....

No, I did not use the term "muzzle free speech" in context of 230. That was a response to some of your comments about the TX law.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You'd have to ask them why. My mention of First Amendment was in the context of a platform deleting content that would otherwise be in line with platform moderation rules, and I can only conjecture whether that would jeopardize 230 protections, though I imagine a tort lawyer would try to sue if the circumstances were right. However, let some nutcase run over a teenager with a car, and have discussion of motive or target by the perp found on Twitter, who deleted other questionable content but not that of the perp....

No, I did not use the term "muzzle free speech" in context of 230. That was a response to some of your comments about the TX law.

You made my very point - that conservatives, you included, sling accusations of muzzling free speech and First Amendment violations to support their incessant whining about social media, even when it has no relevance.
As for tort lawyers suing social media for their moderation decisions, the Whiner-in-Chief's lawsuit against Twitter on this very basis was thrown out of court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...uit-dismissed/

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You made my very point - that conservatives, you included, sling accusations of muzzling free speech and First Amendment violations to support their incessant whining about social media, even when it has no relevance.
As for tort lawyers suing social media for their moderation decisions, the Whiner-in-Chief's lawsuit against Twitter on this very basis was thrown out of court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...uit-dismissed/

No. I presume this is the sentence you're referring to?

However, let some nutcase run over a teenager with a car, and have discussion of motive or target by the perp found on Twitter, who deleted other questionable content but not that of the perp....

This is not a 1st Amendment reference. It is a 230 reference....or more correctly stated, risk that might be incurred absent 230 protections.

As for Trump's lawsuit, his "the gov't made them do it" complaint was pretty damn thin to start with.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No. I presume this is the sentence you're referring to?

However, let some nutcase run over a teenager with a car, and have discussion of motive or target by the perp found on Twitter, who deleted other questionable content but not that of the perp....

This is not a 1st Amendment reference. It is a 230 reference....or more correctly stated, risk that might be incurred absent 230 protections.

As for Trump's lawsuit, his "the gov't made them do it" complaint was pretty damn thin to start with.

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.

From the Knight Institute on the First Amendment at Columbia University on the 5th Circuit opinion:

“This is a deeply unpersuasive opinion. The First Amendment questions presented by the Texas statute can’t be answered simply by recasting the platforms’ editorial decisions as censorship. We hope and expect that the Supreme Court will stay and ultimately vacate this ruling. If the ruling is left in place, it will give state officials all over the country sweeping power to distort free speech online.”

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."

[whell]

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.

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!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

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.



There you go again. 230 is not about the 1st Amendment. It's about liability protection for internet platforms. But, you go boy!

Yet, the 5th Circuit decision (which launched this particular discussion and which you defended) used First Amendment rational to curtail moderation by platform owners. IOW, you and others on the Right use the 1A and its tenets to attack social media moderation and then deny having done so when shown how disingenuous and legally fraught your argument is.