Welcome Guest

It wouldn't be a blanket repeal, since 230 allows

Posted on: April 5, 2021 at 12:25:36 CT

mizzouSECedes STL

Posts:

35981

Member For:

13.46 yrs

Level:

User

M.O.B. Votes:

for protections against illegal content today

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If you repealed it, there wouldn't be any protections to - kmawv8 KC - 4/5 12:01:58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