section 230

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually

Section 230 only shields an intermediary from liability that already exists. If speech is protected by the First Amendment, there can be no liability either for publishing it or republishing it, regardless of Section 230. As the Supreme Court recognized in the Reno v. ACLU case, the First Amendment’s robust speech protections fully apply to online speech. 

Section 230 was included in the CDA to ensure that online services could decide what types of content they wanted to host. Without Section 230, sites that removed sexual content could be held legally responsible for that action, a result that would have made services leery of moderating their users’ content, even if they wanted to create online spaces free of sexual content. The point of 230 was to encourage active moderation to remove sexual content, allowing services to compete with one another based on the types of user content they wanted to host. 

Moreover, the First Amendment also protects the right of online platforms to curate the speech on their sites—to decide what user speech will and will not appear on their sites. 

So Section 230’s immunity for removing user speech is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment. This is apparent given that prior to the Internet, the First Amendment gave non-digital media, such as newspapers, the right to decide what stories and opinions it would publish.

No, online platforms are not “neutral public forums.”

Nor should they be. Section 230 does not say anything like this. And trying to legislate such a “neutrality” requirement for online platforms—besides being unworkable—would violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has confirmed the fundamental right of publishers to have editorial viewpoints. 

It’s also foolish to suggest that web platforms should lose their Section 230 protections for failing to align their moderation policies to an imaginary standard of political neutrality. One of the reasons why Congress first passed Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts. 

In two important early cases over Internet speech, courts allowed civil defamation claims against Prodigy but not against Compuserve; since Prodigy deleted some messages for “offensiveness” and “bad taste,” a court reasoned, it could be treated as a publisher and held liable for its users’ posts. 

Former Rep. Chris Cox recalls reading about the Prodigy opinion on an airplane and thinking that it was “surpassingly stupid.” That revelation led to Cox and then Rep. Ron Wyden introducing the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, which would later become Section 230. 

In practice, creating additional hoops for platforms to jump through in order to maintain their Section 230 protections would almost certainly result in fewer opportunities to share controversial opinions online, not more: under Section 230, platforms devoted to niche interests and minority views can thrive. 

Print publishers and online services are very different, and are treated differently under the law–and should be.

It’s true that online services do not have the same liability for their content that print media does. Unlike publications like newspapers that are legally responsible for the content they print, online publications are relieved of this liability by Section 230. The major distinction the law creates is between online and offline publication, a recognition of the inherent differences in scale between the two modes of publication. (Despite claims otherwise, there is no legal significance to labeling an online service a “platform” as opposed to a “publisher.”) 

But an additional purpose of Section 230 was to eliminate any distinction between those who actively select, curate, and edit the speech before distributing it and those who are merely passive conduits for it. Before Section 230, courts effectively disincentivized platforms from engaging in any speech moderation. Section 230 provides immunity to any “provider or user of an interactive computer service” when that “provider or user” republishes content created by someone or something else, protecting both decisions to moderate it and those to transmit it without moderation. 

The misconception that platforms can somehow lose Section 230 protections for moderating users’ posts has gotten a lot of airtime. This is false.

Section 230 allows sites to moderate content how they see fit.

And that’s what we want: a variety of sites with a plethora of moderation practices keeps the online ecosystem workable for everyone. The Internet is a better place when multiple moderation philosophies can coexist, some more restrictive and some more permissive.

Ashli Babbit

A lot of the protestors on 1/6 entered the Capitol without violence or encountering resistance.

Ashli Babbit was killed as she tried to climb through a broken window of a barricaded door with armed men guarding it.

Should she have known that she was violating a secure area?

Are Secret Service allowed to use deadly force to protect the President and Vice President?

Did you know that people like Lin Wood had made threats against the life of the Vice President that day?

I think the shooter was Secret Service vice-presidential detail because the timing and accuracy showed a very high level of training and skill. Babbit was only in the window for a fraction of a second but that was the perfect time for deadly force.

Not too early, not too late.

And one shot, in the throat? You see street cops empty their magazines and miss.

The shooter used the minimum and necessary amount of force and applied it perfectly.

https://youtu.be/AWMpTHLJXbw

Pelosi's plan

 Nancy Pelosi is a very spiteful woman who hates Trump more than anything in the world. She is, at the same time, very clever and legitimately has a great deal of power that she has earned (unlike Harris, but that's a different subject), which makes her a serious threat to her enemies.

Now she has come up with a pretext to turn the power of Congress against Trump. She accuses Trump of being unstable and untrustworthy to hold the nuclear codes, assisted by the usual lies coming out of the media of how nameless (and imaginary) sources are seeing Trump lose his mind.

On paper, this is a clever attack. If you can not trust Trump with the nuclear codes, you can not simply take them away from Trump because the nation *needs* a National Command Authority with the ability to launch on warning, a time span of mere minutes. So the codes have to be given to someone else competent to use them.

This dilemma justifies an emergency session of Congress.

So far, very clever. But let's turn it up to 11. When she calls this special session, it will be a Congress that just survived a (as she will describe it) domestic terrorist attack incited by Trump. The actual details won't matter, emotions will rule the day. Almost all the Congress people will relive their day of terror and then be given a chance to take out their anger on Trump.

The ones who remain rational will also have seen the size of the crowd that was in DC on 1/6/2021 and see that Trump remains a big threat, to their career at least, if not their lives, after 1/20/2021. They will want a final solution to the threat.

Let your imagination run wild. 

Know that the incoming administration will not restrain them at all, but will eagerly implement what Pelosi commands them to do. SCOTUS has already been shown to be toothless even in the best of times. Trump will have no place to run, no place to hide. And all the Democrats will applaud.

Democrat wish list

It's almost Christmas time (1/20) for the Democrats. Shall we make a list of what they want the most?

1. Statehood for DC (2 D senators)

2. Statehood for Puerto Rico (2 more D senators)

3. Stephen Breyer retired and replaced by a black woman

4. Clarence Thomas replaced by a reliable liberal

5. 3 new reliable liberal SCOTUS justices to cancel out Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett

6. An updated Patriot act 2 to deal with domestic terrorists like Donald Trump and his supporters. An alliance between Democrats and the social media gods to use the force of law to prevent conservatives from communicating.

7. A (so-called) Network Neutrality act to further regulate the network. Don't be fooled by the name any more than Antifa is about being anti-fascist.

8. A modest update to the 15th Amendment requiring racial, gender and sexual preference quotas in all areas of society. i.e. Mandatory Federal level affirmative action.

This will override state level laws or constitutions such as California's Prop 209. (the defeat of Prop 16 was only a temporary thing) 

Reporting requirements plus compliance/auditing bureaucracy.

Zuck, Dorsey, and the Google boys may regret this. Google especially will be hearing the name Timnit Gebru far too many times.

9. Racial reparations of course.

10. Tear down the wall/amnesty/dramatically increase immigration along with generous funding to help our new Americans get adjusted to their new country.

11. Very generous Economic stimulus/COVID assistance. At least 6 trillion dollars to start with. Every year.

12. Kill charter schools, enshrine the power of teachers' unions.

13. Fully transgender protections

14. Enhanced voters' rights legislation. This will mandate Federal level guarantees of simplified, no questions asked, access to mail in ballots for all elections. Plus the return of full Voting Rights Act Section 5 preclearance requirements.

15. Very, very strict gun and ammo restrictions. May have to wait for SCOTUS changes. But it is, at the same time, quite urgent.

Because of Trump supporters.

What have I left out?

Jenny Cudd and Jan 6.

 

cbs7.com

Capitol riots reaction: the congressman, the rioter, and the mayor

---

ODESSA, Texas (KOSA) - “They don’t know they just have awakened a sleeping giant.”

Congress was evacuated from its chambers as trump supporters stormed the U.U. Capitol building, forcing congress into lockdown.

Among those rushed to safety was newly elected Texas District 11 Representative August Pfluger. In a phone interview with CBS7′s Jay Hendricks, Pfluger lambasted the actions of the rioters.

“I got to tell you, I strongly condemn any violence happening here at the Capitol,” Pfluger said. “We’re a country of law and order, and, you know, we were here today to debate the merits of the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is our first amendment rights, which calls for peaceably assembling.”

Midland resident Jenny Cudd was among the rioters who stormed the capitol.

“We start walking up to the Capitol, and we get the news that Pence betrayed us,” Cudd said. “He had way more power, and he wasn’t willing to exercise it. And when Pence betrayed us is when we decided to storm the Capitol.”

Unlike Pfluger, Cudd was proud of the actions of people she calls “patriots.”

“We did break down Nancy Pelosi’s office door, and somebody stole her gavel, and took a picture, sitting in the chair flipping off the camera,” Cudd said.

An unreal scene of a nation that hasn’t been this divided in over a century.

In Odessa, mayor and long-time Trump supporter Javier Joven lamented people’s actions violating the first amendment.

“It’s unfortunate. The thing is, we all have the right for peaceful assembly, and we want to maintain that,” Joven said. “Most of the Trump supporters are law and order, but obviously, we’re not seeing that. So, the thing is that this is a disappointment.”

And although law enforcement and the national guard successfully removed protesters from the Capitol, Cudd has no regrets.

“Hell, yes,” Cudd said. “I’d do it again, and I’d have a gas mask next time.”

Copyright 2021 KOSA. All rights reserved.

vaccine safety

 Double standards, a liberal hallmark.

Covid: 1 death is too many.

Vaccines: 1 death isn’t enough to be concerned.

Covid: This virus can cause severe side effects. Though rare, we must not turn a blind eye and we must take it seriously as we don’t know who will be severely affected.

Vaccines: Severe side effects are possible, but so rare. Please don’t pay attention or let anti-vaxxers scare you away from vaccinations. We don’t have any way of knowing who will be affected, but it’s a risk we must be willing to take for the good of society.

Covid: Though you may have survived Covid with no issues, we're unsure of any side effects that could take place in the long term or later down the road. This is serious.

Vaccines: You survived your vaccine and you’re fine. Anything that happens down the road is not associated with the vaccine.

Covid: Man has heart attack after being diagnosed with Covid. Though most likely rare, we now know Covid can cause heart attacks!

Vaccine: Boy has seizure after receiving vaccine. This is most likely a coincidence and has nothing to do with the vaccine. If it was a result of the vaccine, this is very rare. No reason to be alarmed.

Covid: Man diagnosed with Bell’s Palsy after being diagnosed with Covid. Family says we must take this seriously. Wear your mask and social distance and be afraid.

Vaccine: 4 people were diagnosed with Bell's Palsy after receiving vaccines. While most likely a coincidence, Bell’s Palsy resolves on its own and it's nothing to worry about.

Covid: Believe science. Believe doctors.

Vaccine: I don’t really care if you have any science and those doctors must be quacks.

Covid: HCQ doesn’t work, even though tons of doctors are prescribing it and have had success and even though it’s a 50 year old drug that thousands take daily with no issue. We did a rushed study and a couple of people had bad reactions. It’s not safe and we must block people from using it. We don’t know long term effects and we cannot chance it.

Vaccines: Please take this extremely rushed vaccine that hasn’t had time to be properly tested and please ignore any side effects and don’t worry about any long term effects. The risk is something we must take to help us get rid of this virus. But we also aren’t sure if it even stops transmission so continue to wear a mask and social distance.

Covid: Sorry, I don’t believe posts and articles coming from that news site and I don’t care if you’ve done you’re own unbiased research. I don’t even care about your anectodal evidence.

Vaccines: I haven’t done any research on my own, but I believe what CNN and MSNBC tell me and I have my own anecdotal evidence.