User Controls
ASSANGE TO GET FUCKED LIVESTREAM
-
2019-04-11 at 2:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL "wrong"
Section 230 lives inside the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and it gives websites broad legal immunity: With some exceptions, online platforms can't be sued for something posted by a user — and that remains true even if they act a little like publishers, by moderating posts or setting specific standards.
"Section 230 is as important as the First Amendment to protecting free speech online, certainly here in the U.S.," says Emma Llanso, a free expression advocate at the Center for Democracy and Technology.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider (47 U.S. Code § 230) The argument goes that without Section 230, we would never have platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Yelp or Reddit — sites that allow ordinary people to post opinions or write reviews.
It's "the one line of federal code that has created more economic value in this country than any other," says Michael Beckerman, who runs the Internet Association, which represents many of Silicon Valley's largest companies.
But Section 230 is also tied to some of the worst stuff on the Internet, protecting sites when they host revenge porn, extremely gruesome videos or violent death threats. The broad leeway given to Internet companies represents "power without responsibility," Georgetown University law professor Rebecca Tushnet wrote in an oft-cited paper.
Cox says, "The original purpose of this law was to help clean up the Internet, not to facilitate people doing bad things on the Internet."
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change
None of this contradicts the fact that if they receive a takedown notice and don't do it, they will be held responsible. -
2019-04-11 at 2:14 PM UTC
-
2019-04-11 at 2:16 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-04-11 at 2:17 PM UTC
-
2019-04-11 at 2:18 PM UTC
-
2019-04-11 at 2:20 PM UTC
-
2019-04-11 at 2:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Well no, there are laws on how to deal with lawbreakers. Either way, legality is pretty much irrelevant to what is right and wrong.
Not when the law enforcers are corrupted themselves. In that case, all laws don't matter.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What gives the physical book its value as opposed to, say, selling an illegitimate ebook copy of the same book?
An electronic communication is called an "instrument". When you steal an instrument, you are responsible for stealing the instrument, not for what's contained in it. -
2019-04-11 at 2:50 PM UTCBREAKING - ALEXANDRA OCASIO-CORTEZ OFFERS HER THOUGHTS ON JULIAN ASSANGE AND WIKILEAKS
-
2019-04-11 at 2:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Not when the law enforcers are corrupted themselves. In that case, all laws don't matter.
Then what the fuck is the point of arguing legality in the first palace?An electronic communication is called an "instrument". When you steal an instrument, you are responsible for stealing the instrument, not for what's contained in it.
Would you hold someone responsible for selling a non stolen ebook with stolen text in it? What removes its value as opposed to the physical book? -
2019-04-11 at 2:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Then what the fuck is the point of arguing legality in the first palace?
Would you hold someone responsible for selling a non stolen ebook with stolen text in it? What removes its value as opposed to the physical book?
For the content itself, that comes down to civil litigation, not criminal litigation. -
2019-04-11 at 3:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Then what the fuck is the point of arguing legality in the first palace?
Would you hold someone responsible for selling a non stolen ebook with stolen text in it? What removes its value as opposed to the physical book?
By first palace would you be referring to Buckingham palace? I'm not aware of Americans even having any palaces, so I'm assuming that switches the precedence to your original masters by default.
. -
2019-04-11 at 3:10 PM UTC
-
2019-04-11 at 3:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Well no, there are laws on how to deal with lawbreakers. Either way, legality is pretty much irrelevant to what is right and wrong.
You youngsters are so idealistic and thats great an all. But when you get older and more experienced you'll come to find it isn't an ideal world, things aren't fair and don't always follow a rule.
. -
2019-04-11 at 3:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Narc You youngsters are so idealistic and thats great an all. But when you get older and more experienced you'll come to find it isn't an ideal world, things aren't fair and don't always follow a rule.
.
The whole point of operating in the world, on any level including basic survival, is to make it as it should be rather than how it is. What do we work towards if not our ideals? -
2019-04-11 at 3:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The whole point of operating in the world, on any level including basic survival, is to make it as it should be rather than how it is. What do we work towards if not our ideals?
Believe it or not we don't really make the world, we just live in it. We can try and make things go one way or the other but it rarely works perfectly as we'd like it to.
Its like I always say. You can build your city and have your laws of your city. But you're still just living in a city thats in the jungle. Laws of the jungle will still apply.
. -
2019-04-11 at 3:24 PM UTCThe law keepers have become the law breakers, rendering all laws nothing but a bad joke.
-
2019-04-11 at 3:31 PM UTCYou have to realize that law is just a group of men imposing their will on others, Nothing more. There's nothing devine or official or legitimate about it. Its just some people saying this is how it is, how its going to be, and if you defy that and we find out, we will hurt you in some way and force you to our will.
Thats all it is. Everything else surrounding it is just dressing, usually designed to add the illusion of some form of legitimacy to it.
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-04-11 at 3:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Narc Believe it or not we don't really make the world, we just live in it. We can try and make things go one way or the other but it rarely works perfectly as we'd like it to.
Its like I always say. You can build your city and have your laws of your city. But you're still just living in a city thats in the jungle. Laws of the jungle will still apply.
.
No, by the very act of living in it, you are changing the world from what it is to how you think it ought to be. Observe: I have made this post, and it sits unaddressed. You are going to either move to respond to it or choose to ignore it. Either way, you must move from the position you occupy while reading this, and both are a matter of you doing what you ought do rather than what you are doing, by the very nature of action. Or you could sit there absolutely motionless until you die. But even in doing so you will be suppressing what you are moving to do. It is the essence of being. -
2019-04-11 at 3:46 PM UTC
-
2019-04-11 at 3:51 PM UTCthis thread reminds me of arguing on meth. it just goes from one tangent to the next without getting anywhereThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
