How a Supreme Court ruling against Google
could upend the internet as we know it
Washington Examiner,
by
Kaelan Deese
&
Christopher Hutton
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
2/21/2023 11:12:35 AM
In oral arguments set for Tuesday, the Supreme Court will address the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for the first time as legal experts signal a ruling against Google could change the internet for the worse by opening online companies up to a flurry of litigation.
The justices will hear arguments in a case appealed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old California-based woman who was shot and killed in 2015 by Islamist militants in Paris. Lower courts previously dismissed a lawsuit against YouTube's owner Google seeking monetary damages, citing Section 230. Google and YouTube are part of parent company Alphabet
Reply 1 - Posted by:
zephyrgirl 2/21/2023 11:28:20 AM (No. 1408538)
I frankly think it needs to be upended, and the internet companies need to be sued for their censorship and banning people who disagree with their propaganda.
50 people like this.
The best thing to happen would be banning all social media sites forever.
34 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
BluesClues 2/21/2023 12:42:39 PM (No. 1408611)
They shouldn't have it both ways. If they feel they have the right to censor content, then they must be liable for cases where they failed at their job and someone is killed as a result. If they believe social media companies should not be liable to lawsuits due to the content that is posted (which I am in support of), then they should all all (legal) content to be posted.
22 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
DVC 2/21/2023 12:46:32 PM (No. 1408614)
Anything that harms or restricts the unfettered evil of Google is a good thing.
Google is evil.
38 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
jeffinitely 2/21/2023 1:03:34 PM (No. 1408641)
The article lost me at "after a mob of violent supporters rioted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6"
44 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 2/21/2023 3:56:31 PM (No. 1408734)
Section 230 was an abomination when it was put into effect. It was written by the big tech elite specifically to allow them to censor conservatives. the argument that was presented was that things like google and facebook were platforms that could not be regulated due to their size and complexity. The owners of said platforms could not be held liable for the things users posted. They argued that they were not publishers and therefore excercised no control on the actual authors. Then out of the other side of their mouth they played the shining white night that would protect all of us by heroically editing content found to be "misinformation" or "hate" or whatever.
They cannot have it both ways, if they are editing content Banning is editing if they ban X but allow Y are they not endorsing Y? So if they are endorsing Y by eliminating any dissent shouldn'nt they be held responsible for that content? Every other publisher can be sued for libel, why not facebook if indeed they are moderating their content. Moderating and approving content makes them a publisher, with all the responsibilities and liabilities that brings with it.
If they are simply platforms than they must allow access to all, with the very narrow exception of removing ILLEGAL material. Stuff involving children, detailed plans for stealth bombers,lists of stolen credit cards, that kind of stuff. Because you cannot edit content, ie ban, you cannot be held liable for that content.
Pick one, you cannot have both.
22 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
learner 2/21/2023 8:44:42 PM (No. 1408855)
FTA Newspeak 'The Bipartisan Policy Center, a center-left nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C' Oxymoron's R Us. Nothing bipartisan with any left leaning non profit. Just worried they will not be able to censor the truth.
3 people like this.
“ Notably, conservative criticism of Section 230 was ratcheted up in part by former President Donald Trump when Twitter and other platforms banned him after a mob of violent supporters rioted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump unsuccessfully sought an appeal at the time, and in recent weeks, Trump has been unbanned from Twitter, while Meta has signaled he'll soon be allowed back on its Facebook platform.”
Be careful what you wish for. The Examiner (Deep State Rag) is giddy with excitement that the Internet may soon be free of Patriots.
4 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Paperpuncher 2/22/2023 8:28:32 AM (No. 1409064)
Google is a monopoly and should be broken up, period!
8 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Jebediah 2/22/2023 9:22:30 AM (No. 1409105)
One of the Justices yesterday said that the Court does not understand computers and the Net, and that people who DO should be making these decisions---she named Congress, but I don't think THEY understand either. (It would be great if the Justices would have tutorials with the experts before they rule, but I guess that horse has left the barn.)
3 people like this.
This case involves a grown woman being radicalized and eventually killed because of what she saw on the internet. This case needs to be thrown out, since people are responsible for their own actions. Blaming the internet for people's bad behavior would have the effect of infantilizing the entire nation.
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Zigrid 2/22/2023 11:16:26 AM (No. 1409216)
Well...this will be interesting...google is out of control and does not deserve the 230 protection of the government....they are not a news forum...they are leftist who want their opinion on line...and no one else...it explains the direct tv and att action against Newsmax and OAN...call and make your feelings known...don't be afraid...the FBI isn't gonna show up at 6:00 in the morning with guns drawn....there's to many of US...
4 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 2/22/2023 12:25:35 PM (No. 1409279)
Poster #4 wins the game football. Nothing more needs to be written.
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
pmcclure 2/22/2023 5:23:36 PM (No. 1409440)
Per a comment below, what we actually have is not social media sites, but socialist media.
0 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 2/22/2023 5:55:20 PM (No. 1409454)
I have only one question. Businesses and restaurants, fire, police and first responders use the internet for legitimate purposes in their various businesses and offices. This may be some sort of 2-tier, at least, communication avenues. I recognize that fire, police and medical have their own dedicated networks. The internet as it stands now is easily hackable, and as far as I know gainfully employed, honest people don't need to hack. (Admittedly, they may just want to.) The question is: What will take the place of this nasty mess that now exists. Something better (ha) or something very much worse as only the federal government can do it?
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)