FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Chicks

From the libertarians. SCOTUS will kill this nonsense.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/17...akings-clause/

Thanks, quite an interesting legal theory.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Well here comes the kicker.



So this means that even if its identified as a disinformation campaign, the social mediate companies cannot censor it. This is the way to legally make a lie the truth.



Any thoughts on how the SCOTUS will rule on this one? I will bet they whiff at it. Otherwise the noise will be deafening with elections around the corner.

https://www.axios.com/2022/09/18/tex...urt-censorship

This will almost certainly be overruled. If not, social media companies should geoblock users in Texas. They'll come back begging.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

This will almost certainly be overruled. If not, social media companies should geoblock users in Texas. They'll come back begging.

Domain name Liesocial.com is for sale for $5000.00 by owner.
Abbot and DeSantis should grab it while its cheap.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

This will almost certainly be overruled. If not, social media companies should geoblock users in Texas. They'll come back begging.

Of course, I disagree.

Seriously, there is a body of law that is in play here. The essential question boils down to Is (for example) Twitter a media platform or service provider, or are they a "publisher"?

Media platforms have unique protections under the law: the Communications Decency Act.

The First Amendment protects free speech, including hate speech, but Section 230 shields websites from liability for content created by their users. It permits internet companies to moderate their sites without being on the hook legally for everything they host. It does not provide blanket protection from legal responsibility for some criminal acts, like posting child pornography or violations of intellectual property.

The legal question is: Does a platform lose it's Section 230 protection if it starts editing or deleting specific types of content? Particularly content that would otherwise be protected by the user's First Amendment rights. If it does this, is it no longer a service provider? Does it become a "publisher" because it is determining what otherwise First Amendment-protected content is allowed to be displayed on its site?

Certainly, there are good and bad outcomes related to 230 protections, as the linked article describes. But whether you're for or against certain opinions, anyone with access to a platform provided for public communications should not have their 1st Amendment rights abused by that platform.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Of course, I disagree.

Seriously, there is a body of law that is in play here. The essential question boils down to Is (for example) Twitter a media platform or service provider, or are they a "publisher"?

Media platforms have unique protections under the law: the Communications Decency Act.

The First Amendment protects free speech, including hate speech, but Section 230 shields websites from liability for content created by their users. It permits internet companies to moderate their sites without being on the hook legally for everything they host. It does not provide blanket protection from legal responsibility for some criminal acts, like posting child pornography or violations of intellectual property.

The legal question is: Does a platform lose it's Section 230 protection if it starts editing or deleting specific types of content? Particularly content that would otherwise be protected by the user's First Amendment rights. If it does this, is it no longer a service provider? Does it become a "publisher" because it is determining what otherwise First Amendment-protected content is allowed to be displayed on its site?

Certainly, there are good and bad outcomes related to 230 protections, as the linked article describes. But whether you're for or against certain opinions, anyone with access to a platform provided for public communications should not have their 1st Amendment rights abused by that platform.

I know all of that. The issue is that the GOP wants to use these private platforms to propagate dangerous conspiracy theories (about stolen elections, COVID, "replacement theory,", etc.) because these lies rile up their impressionable base. The problem is that the riled up MAGA base often turns to violence (Jan. 6, mass murders, etc.) and these private platforms want no part of it (and it does not comply with their terms of service).

A similar law was blocked by a Federal appeals court in Florida and this one will likely go down too if appealed. I still think geoblocking would be a good idea. It would tell Texas that if they want to prohibit the enforcement of the terms of service within their state, they can go to Truth Social (which BTW censored user who reported on the Jan. 6 hearings).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I know all of that. The issue is that the GOP wants to use these private platforms to propagate dangerous conspiracy theories (about stolen elections, COVID, "replacement theory,", etc.) because these lies rile up their impressionable base. The problem is that the riled up MAGA base often turns to violence (Jan. 6, mass murders, etc.) and these private platforms want no part of it (and it does not comply with their terms of service).

Replacement theory is popular on the left too, sir. And the leftys are out there also killing folks, as we just saw in North Dakota. And you can't tell me that Dem's don't have their nutty fringe posting on social media too. It's just that some of them might be a little to busy to post quite as much since many of them are House or Senate members, or running campaigns like election-denier Stacy Abrams. ...or even the Prez....but I digress. Hell, Facebook allows Hamas to post.

Whether these platforms want no part of certain types of speech is central to the issue of their 230 protections. Once they make themselves publishers, they can be sued for everything and anything that is posted, provided such a party can show "harm" was caused by the post.

If they don't want the 230 protections, fine. I suspect tort lawyers would go on the attack and that would be the end of social media. Personally, that's fine by me. Social media in my opinion caused more harm than good. Haven't used Facebook in years and don't even have a Twitter, Snapchat or Tick Toc account.

[finnbow]

A verdict in the case of Democracy Partners v. Project Veritas has been handed down, according to Joseph Sandler, an attorney for Democracy Partners. Project Veritas has been found liable on both counts: Unlawful wiretapping and fraudulent misrepresentation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/us/politics/project-veritas-lawsuit.html

These deceitful clowns are what passes for investigative journalism on the Right.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

A verdict in the case of Democracy Partners v. Project Veritas has been handed down, according to Joseph Sandler, an attorney for Democracy Partners. Project Veritas has been found liable on both counts: Unlawful wiretapping and fraudulent misrepresentation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/u...s-lawsuit.html

These deceitful clowns are what passes for investigative journalism on the Right.

Yup, we just can't have the truth coming out about the inner workings of the Dem party. Just to refresh memories about this:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/polit...-trump-rallies

Washington
CNN
—
A Democratic operative whose organization was helping Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced Tuesday that he would be “stepping back” from the campaign after an edited video suggested that he and other staffers hired people to attend Donald Trump’s campaign rallies and incite violence.

Robert Creamer – husband of Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky – announced his resignation in a statement after conservative activist James O’Keefe released a video under his organization Project Veritas Action, which showed Creamer and other operatives purportedly discussing methods for inciting violence at rallies for the Republican nominee.

This one isn't done yet, because is has relevance outside this case. Specifically:

https://www.axios.com/2022/09/23/pro...onsulting-firm

But the jury of five women and four men found former operative Allison Maass "breached a fiduciary duty" in the operation that "amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation" after she gained an internship at Democracy Partners "using a false name and story," Politico reports.

Undercover journalism is nothing new. It does have a bit of a checkered past, but there have been some significant stories in the public interest that have been sourced by undercover journalistic practices. If memory serves, years ago a Chicago newspaper actually purchased a bar where Chicago city officials hung out. The reason? So they could get the officials on hidden camera accepting bribes. A number of local stories about city of Detroit employee shinanigans were made public through undercover journalism.

If this ruling, the jury concluded that a reporter has a "fiduciary responsibility" to the subject of the interview. If that becomes the new legal standard, it would effectively take undercover journalism off the table as an information-gathering tool.

I think this boils down to a First Amendment issue. There's also US Federal case law that was potentially ignored when reaching an outcome in this case. For example:

In a win for freedom of the press, a federal court this month struck down an Iowa law making it a crime to lie about your intentions when accessing an agricultural production facility.

The “ag-gag” law, which was aimed at undercover journalists and activists, essentially prevented undercover investigations of the agricultural industry. In a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Iowa, the court rightly found that the law violates the First Amendment.

No, I don't think this one is over yet.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Yup, we just can't have the truth coming out about the inner workings of the Dem party. Just to refresh memories about this:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/polit...-trump-rallies

Washington
CNN
—
A Democratic operative whose organization was helping Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced Tuesday that he would be “stepping back” from the campaign after an edited video suggested that he and other staffers hired people to attend Donald Trump’s campaign rallies and incite violence.

Robert Creamer – husband of Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky – announced his resignation in a statement after conservative activist James O’Keefe released a video under his organization Project Veritas Action, which showed Creamer and other operatives purportedly discussing methods for inciting violence at rallies for the Republican nominee.

This one isn't done yet, because is has relevance outside this case. Specifically:

https://www.axios.com/2022/09/23/pro...onsulting-firm

But the jury of five women and four men found former operative Allison Maass "breached a fiduciary duty" in the operation that "amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation" after she gained an internship at Democracy Partners "using a false name and story," Politico reports.

Undercover journalism is nothing new. It does have a bit of a checkered past, but there have been some significant stories in the public interest that have been sourced by undercover journalistic practices. If memory serves, years ago a Chicago newspaper actually purchased a bar where Chicago city officials hung out. The reason? So they could get the officials on hidden camera accepting bribes. A number of local stories about city of Detroit employee shinanigans were made public through undercover journalism.

If this ruling, the jury concluded that a reporter has a "fiduciary responsibility" to the subject of the interview. If that becomes the new legal standard, it would effectively take undercover journalism off the table as an information-gathering tool.

I think this boils down to a First Amendment issue. There's also US Federal case law that was potentially ignored when reaching an outcome in this case. For example:

In a win for freedom of the press, a federal court this month struck down an Iowa law making it a crime to lie about your intentions when accessing an agricultural production facility.

The “ag-gag” law, which was aimed at undercover journalists and activists, essentially prevented undercover investigations of the agricultural industry. In a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Iowa, the court rightly found that the law violates the First Amendment.

No, I don't think this one is over yet.

As for your assertion that Project Veritas exposed "the inner working of the Dem Party," that's part of the lawsuit. From the article I linked, the videos suggested that Mr. Creamer and another man, Scott Foval, were developing a plan to provoke violence by supporters of Donald J. Trump at his rallies. Mr. Creamer’s lawsuit said the “video was heavily edited and contained commentary by O’Keefe that drew false conclusions.”

If this doesn't get them, then their participation in a conspiracy to steal Ashley Biden's diary could(and it's criminal, not civil). In any event, Project Veritas isn't journalism. It's yet another example of conservative con games.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

In any event, Project Veritas isn't journalism. It's yet another example of conservative con games.

How does that relate to the story in this case? Did Veritas "con" Creamer into a discussion of inciting violence? As far as I know, he did that all by himself.