Welcome Guest

Yes it would. It would cause all speech to be regulated

Posted on: April 5, 2021 at 11:48:47 CT

Say_What MU

Posts:

3578

Member For:

4.93 yrs

Level:

User

M.O.B. Votes:

and moderated since it would make the people who own the website responsible for speech on the website...

It would blow up in your face and open the door for way more regulated speech on the internet.

Edited by Say_What at 11:49:23 on 04/05/21

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

MESSAGE THREAD

Is Justice Thomas correct? - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 4/5 11:22:02

YES - mu4ever DUKE - 4/5 12:14:21

RE: Is Justice Thomas correct? - JayHoaxH8r MU

- 4/5 12:12:43

No - El-ahrairah BAMA - 4/5 12:01:56

Didn't read that but my guess is no.(nm) - GA Tiger MU - 4/5 11:50:40

probably not - pickle MU

- 4/5 11:40:32

^ agrees with DOC (nm) - SwampTiger MU - 4/5 11:42:32

I am 100% for free speech but if you ever visited 8chan - Say_What MU - 4/5 11:38:32

That is what they are doing now. The repeal would take - DHighlander NWMSU - 4/5 11:56:27

RE: Is Justice Thomas correct? - scan MU - 4/5 11:24:56

Exactly, they get protection from 230 (thought it was 320) - hokie VT - 4/5 11:27:57

Repealing 230 would blow up in your face (nm) - Say_What MU - 4/5 11:42:03

No it wouldn't (nm) - mizzouSECedes STL - 4/5 11:48:16

Yes it would. It would cause all speech to be regulated - Say_What MU - 4/5 11:48:47

Yeah, heaven forbid media tell the truth, right? (nm) - mizzouSECedes STL - 4/5 12:12:21

they shouldn’t be forced to (nm) - pickle MU

- 4/5 12:14:47

Then they are editorializing not hosting. No one says they - DHighlander NWMSU - 4/5 12:17:32

It doesn’t matter what they’re doing - pickle MU

- 4/5 12:19:31

It would also open the door to new hosting sites that would - DHighlander NWMSU - 4/5 11:58:36

Are you a denizen of 4chan? Have you seen the crap posted - Say_What MU - 4/5 12:04:38

I avoid those sites. The problem is that Google and FB have - DHighlander NWMSU - 4/5 12:11:48

Nick controls content here by not allowing certain things - kmawv8 KC - 4/5 12:14:34

no (nm) - pickle MU

- 4/5 12:12:47

Another in the long line of insightful posts by Pizzle. 👏(nm) - DHighlander NWMSU - 4/5 12:15:33

If you repealed it, there wouldn't be any protections to - kmawv8 KC - 4/5 12:01:58

Not for the companies that lost it. - DHighlander NWMSU - 4/5 12:05:23

If I misunderstood him, then I apologize. - kmawv8 KC - 4/5 12:06:37

I am talking about repeal section 230 as a whole - Say_What MU - 4/5 12:08:08

No, Donald Trump didn't want to repeal section 230 - kmawv8 KC - 4/5 12:09:41

Exactly - mizzouSECedes STL - 4/5 12:14:27

That is my understanding. Either abide by the requirements - DHighlander NWMSU - 4/5 12:13:43

Well, perhaps a conversation for another day or thread, but - kmawv8 KC - 4/5 12:16:39

Also worth discussion. But if a site is truly just hosting - DHighlander NWMSU - 4/5 12:23:57

It wouldn't be a blanket repeal, since 230 allows - mizzouSECedes STL - 4/5 12:25:36

It should be a blanket repeal. - kmawv8 KC - 4/5 12:30:04

I would tend to agree generally - mizzouSECedes STL - 4/5 12:31:08

no, it would not - pickle MU

- 4/5 11:54:33

Yes it would pickle. I am not confusing anything - Say_What MU - 4/5 12:06:12

There would still be exceptions for illegal content - mizzouSECedes STL - 4/5 12:24:45

but you aren’t responsible - pickle MU

- 4/5 12:11:57

That is very likely to be the case. To make the website - GA Tiger MU - 4/5 11:53:16

the Twitter question confuses 1st Amendment with the - Ace AU - 4/5 11:24:48