It is couched in terms of discrimination, and it prohibits internet service providers and social media companies from restricting users’ content on the basis of race, sex, religion or political orientation. The bill includes statutory damages of $50,000 per violation, along with recovery of attorneys’ fees. It creates an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, including non-discrimination, in all applicable terms of useThe Powerline Blog has embedded the actual legislation, which is similar to legislation being offered in multiple states right now. This, of course, offers liberals a chance to do their general hypocritical 180 as it pertains to the concept of State's rights. When Trump was President, liberals loved the idea that Governors such as Cuomo and Newsom were able to have so much control of vast portions of the population. Now that Biden is President, I am sure liberals will be against the States and demand that everything remain under Federal control.
Let's be clear here folks, the only reason we are seeing Twitter and Facebook going off on their big conservative purges is that they know that the Biden Administration and Biden DOJ will not blink an eye, much less go after them. The same could certainly not have been said about Bill Barr and the Trump DOJ. This was not coincidental timing and it has nothing to do with the fact that there was one single riot that caused minimal damage.
While these social media giants believe that they have a "loophole" with their own personal decisions on what might be considered "objectionable". The burden of proof would be to show that similar statements made by liberals and conservatives are treated exactly the same way. The fact that liberals might "object" to free speech at a higher rate than conservatives (who don't believe opinions are violence) should be legally moot.
If Trump is censored or banned over telling someone to "fight" for a cause, then every politicians (Republican or Democrat) would also have to be censored or banned for using the same term in the same context. It wouldn't be up to Twitter or FB to determine which "cause" is worthy of fighting for and which does not allow for the use of the term.
Ultimately this is where the States come into play. Enough states pass these restrictions, then it becomes too much trouble for Twitter or Facebook to attempt to censor, ban, or cancel opinions that they do not like while attempting to also control which states that are affected.
44 comments:
don't you guys have a GOP legislature and donk governor? will the donk sign it if it passes?
When the new technology of radio and television happened, the government imposed the fairness Doctrine on television networks. They were required to broadcast politically balanced news.
President Reagan repealed the fairness Doctrine.
It actually allowed broadcasters like Fox News.
Fox is not required to broadcast anything they want.
But along came the internet. The government has zero control over the internet websites, except to protect them from being sued by people who were offered by websites. The website companies are private companies or corporations.
They are protected by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Republicans are trying to impose government restrictions on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram etc..
If this gets to the Supreme Court, the original intent philosophy will protect the freedom of speech.
The only restrictions on the freedom of speech is to prosecute child porn etc. and shouting fire in a crowded room.
For political reasons, you want to limit the freedom of speech.
economic recovery in the first 100 days"Alky
Ok, you said mid-summer, then you said late-summer and now April 30,2021.
Wow, Roger that is a bold prediction.
<<>>>
don't you guys have a GOP legislature and donk governor? will the donk sign it if it passes?
Hard to tell. But it should be a popular bill for pretty much everyone. Hard to veto a bill that bans discrimination if you are a liberal. Or at least one would think.
Personal attacks are discouraged by S.Scott J****n.
Speaking in favor of sexual discrimination and racial discrimination is protected by the first President.
Do you want that right to be repealed?
Even Newsmax stopped the pillow man from saying things that were untrue.
Does that offend you Scott?
I am an absolutist on the first amendment rights. Except as already decided.
Ot
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., is considered a key vote on the relief package. He said he was open to the proposal on Tuesday, but said he thought the $15 minimum wage in the bill was too high. “I’m supportive of basically having something that’s responsible and reasonable," Manchin told The Hill. In West Virginia, he said, that would be closer to $11 an hour.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., speaks to reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)More
Any relief “must be targeted on the COVID-19 crisis and Americans who have been most impacted by this pandemic," he added.
On Wednesday morning, Manchin said he wasn’t opposed to the administration’s $1.9 trillion price tag but wanted a bipartisan process. He added that Biden told him he wanted to avoid a repeat of 2009, when Republicans extended negotiations for months with the Obama White House and in the end didn’t support the relief bill. The final bill may not contain all the provisions sought by Biden, but Democratic leaders said they were optimistic.
“The Senate is going to move forward this week with the process for producing the next bold rescue package,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “Time is a luxury our country does not have, and let me be very clear. … We are not going to dilute, dither or delay.”
“The sentiment is positive,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., of getting the 50 votes to move forward with the process. “We don’t ask for an oath in writing, but we’re proceeding with a positive feeling."
More than 447,000 Americans have died of COVID-19, and millions continue to deal with job losses. With expanded unemployment benefits set to expire in mid-March, there’s a hard deadline for Congress to act to avoid having millions of Americans lose their primary source of income. A December report from Columbia University projected at the time that without the expanded unemployment benefits being renewed, 4.8 million Americans — who in many instances are already dealing with delayed benefit redistribution — risked falling into poverty.
------
By March 19th, when unemployment payments are scheduled to end, the recovery package will pass, perhaps with a few Republicans.
The Dark Winter President continues his Socialist March as Dictator.
"Under the order, individuals are required to wear masks while using public transportation, which includes “awaiting, boarding, disembarking, or traveling on airplanes, ships, ferries, trains, subways, buses, taxis, and ride-shares as they are traveling into, within, or out of the United States and U.S. territories,” per the CDC."
Enforcement.
Biden failed to keep his $2,000 payment.
"April 30" Roger predicted we will be back to pre-pandemic levels across all areas of the US Economy.
The Republicans are trying to impose government restrictions on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram etc..
prohibiting them from silencing, censoring, and discriminating is "imposing government restrictions?"
i see it's your intent to take absurdity to a whole new level on this thread since i pummeled your alky ass on the previous thread.
LOL.
The Dark Winter President has a problem.
He tried to bully this guy.
"Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) criticized the minimum wage increase and funding for state and local governments in President Joe Biden’s coronavirus relief proposal and said that he will not vote for a coronavirus relief package on a party-line vote."
President Reagan repealed the fairness Doctrine.
It actually allowed broadcasters like Fox News.
Fox is not required to broadcast anything they want.
the fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast licenses. not cable TV channels like Fox News.
Roger , your desire to be wealthy is funny.
So funny someone tricked you out of Lydia's Nest egg and your piggy bank.
What was the ROI you were guaranteed?
It is truly spectacular how much Roger simply does not know.
Roger still sees "censorship" as means to "free speech'.
Cable TV came along after Reagan repelled the fairness Doctrine. So the cable network could carry anyone they wanted to carry.
If a company that wanted to broadcast politically motivated news, would not have been granted a license before Reagan repealed the fairness Doctrine.
He gave freedom of speech to anyone!
If you people have your way, Twitter, MSNBC, etc. could be sued out of business.
Scott, the freedom of speech is not censorship. You don't understand what you are supporting.
Newsmax blocked the pillow man.
Do you want to file a case of political bias,???
C.H. Truth said...
Roger still sees "censorship" as means to "free speech'.
he honestly believes that the legislation being proposed in MN restricts Twitter's free speech and First Amendment rights.
every time I think the alky has reached the absolute pinnacle of stupidity and absurdity, he kicks it up a few notches to never before seen heights.
I do, in a way, understand where he's coming from though.
if the left wasn't afraid of losing the argument, and they actually had the facts and the truth on their side, they wouldn't insist upon censoring us.
Actually private companies have the authority to censor anything they want.
Read the first amendment asshole
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Scott, the freedom of speech is not censorship. You don't understand what you are supporting.
he's supporting legislation denying big tech the ability to censor others.
the first amendment is absolute alky. with a couple of obvious and glaring exceptions.
YOU insist upon granting the power to Big Tech to censor YOUR political opponents. and the reason why is that your arguments fall flat under scrutiny.
some queef on the NYT proposes a "ministry of Truth" a la "1984" and you applaud.
LOL.
The New York Times has the absolute right to print it wants.
If you write a letter to the editor, they are not required to print it or post it online.
Cable TV came along after Reagan repelled the fairness Doctrine. So the cable network could carry anyone they
The local history expert shits the bed. CNN and you understand the C is for cable, came around before Reagan took office
Stagger back to bed
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Actually private companies have the authority to censor anything they want.
Read the first amendment asshole
ok alky, let's read the First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
uh, alky... I'm not seeing the "private companies have the authority to censor anything they want" clause.
help us out here.
and no, Newsmax didn't block Mike Lindell. they ended the interview segment when he went off the rails and went on a rant that might have exposed Newsmax to legal risk with his accusations.
he was not BLOCKED.
The Cable News Network was launched at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 1, 1980.
Reagan was 69 years, 349 days of age when he was sworn into office for his first term on January 20, 1981.
I'm so sorry this is happening to you alky.
I don't respond to the racist rodent. Or kputz.
I'm waiting for Scott to prove that if Twitter denies his post is a violation of his first amendment rights under the law.
Updated
Cable TV came along about the same time Reagan repelled the fairness Doctrine. So the cable network could carry anyone they wanted to carry.
and btw alky...
back in the day, cable required a subscription.
still does. which is why HBO can use dirty words and is also why their stuff runs commercial-free.
the BROADCAST networks on the other hand were and are free to all.
if you're going to comment on this shit the least you can do is educate yourself on its history and how it's structured.
1987 huh you fucking idiot
Plus the regular broadcast networks were given right to choose what they want to broadcast.
Scott wants to reimpose political censorship.
Personal attacks are discourage by Scott.
I still say CH needs to put a "the alky stepped on a rake again" counter on the sidebar.
LOL.
Joe Biden just put me out of business by suspending new oil and gas leases and drilling permits. I am a petroleum geologist and generate drilling prospects in the Rocky Mountains on federal lands. I worked six years to get a prospect ready to drill and Biden just illegally broke the terms of the lease, killing the deal.
This action was done under the guise of helping climate change but will not stop one CO2 molecule from being released, as there is nothing in the executive order to reduce consumption.
No one is going to drive less, fly less or stop heating their homes or businesses. The oil demand will remain the same and we will need to purchase oil from overseas. This decision is not based on science, logic or even common sense. Why do you want to put Americans out of work when you are not solving the problem?
Oil and gas is a major business in Colorado and the rest of the Rocky Mountains which are 50% federal lands. The industry provides major tax income from production and payback royalties from federal lands to our schools. This action will result in the loss of millions of oil industry jobs and tax base for all the Rocky Mountain States.
With 50% of the potential lands off limits to explore, it will very quickly kill the industry and accomplish nothing. Biden’s slogan should be “Make America Poor Again.”
— Tim T. Schowalter, Granby
https://www.skyhinews.com/letter-to-the-editor/letter-joe-biden-put-me-out-of-business/
A study by the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, titled “False Allegation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Censors Conservatives,” is downright chilling—and it tells you everything you need to know about the dishonesty of those who purport to be arbiters of truth in modern American society.
The researchers didn’t waste any time getting to the crux of their preposterous charges. The report declares at the outset: “The claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy largescale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests.”
Not only are we accused of lying on social media anytime we have the audacity to share an opinion that does not conform to left-wing orthodoxy but now they say we are lying about being lied about! This nonsense is why it was essential to launch PJ Media’s VIP membership program last year. More on that later.
You would think such a bold claim would be backed up by reams of data to prove their thesis. Alas, the researchers proffer no such proof. You have to scroll all the way down to page 20 of the report to learn that:
"The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can’t be answered conclusively because the data available to academic and civil society researchers aren’t sufficiently detailed. Existing periodic enforcement disclosures by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are helpful but not granular enough to allow for thorough analysis by outsiders.” [Emphasis added.]
So, the question “can’t be answered” because there is not enough available data to support a conclusion one way or another. Nevertheless, the researchers felt confident declaring that charges of bias are based in “falsehood” or “disinformation.”
If this NYU report is any indication—and I have no doubt that it will be used far and wide as justification to further silence us—we will henceforth be accused of trading in “disinformation” any time we dare to complain about anti-conservative media bias—based on the flimsiest of arguments and data that the researchers admit is inconclusive and not “granular” enough.
https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2021/02/03/want-to-know-what-conservative-media-is-up-against-check-out-this-chilling-new-report-on-social-media-bias-n1422313
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The freedom of speech includes the right to choose what you want to say anywhere and the right to choose what to say about anything. The government does not have the authority to force Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or any other means to allow rrb to call Mexicans beaners.
The social media companies have the right to be arbitrers of what they want to broadcast.
Lolololololololololol
I checked out the exact word.
Arbitrer is an obsolete (no longer used) word for an arbitrator—an independent, impartial third party that works to settle a dispute between two opposing sides, ... but in the correct context.
Arbitrer is an obsolete (no longer used) word for an arbitrator
i see the 'arbiter' used all the time most commonly in the context of 'final arbiter.'
dictionary.com needs to do better. but they sure have you fooled.
I watched this, and cried.
SHARE THIS —
SECTIONS
CORONAVIRUSU.S. NEWSPOLITICSWORLDLOCALBUSINESSHEALTHINVESTIGATIONSCULTURE MATTERSSCIENCESPORTSTECH & MEDIADECISION 2020VIDEO FEATURESPHOTOSWEATHERSHOPPING
TV
TODAYMSNBCNIGHTLY NEWSMEET THE PRESSDATELINE
FEATURED
NBC NEWS NOWTHINKBETTERNIGHTLY FILMSASIAN AMERICANBC LATINONBCBLKNBC OUTSTAY TUNEDSPECIAL FEATURESNEWSLETTERSPODCASTS
MORE FROM NBC
CNBCNBC.COMNBC LEARNPEACOCKNEXT STEPS FOR VETSPARENT TOOLKITNBC ARCHIVESKNOW YOUR VALUECOUPONS
FOLLOW NBC NEWS
FacebookTwitterEmailSMSPrintWhatsappRedditPocketFlipboardPinterestLinkedin
JOE BIDEN
Biden pays respects to Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick as he lies in honor at Rotunda
Sicknick's cremated remains will be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery.
00:20 /01:22
TAP TO UNMUTE
President Biden, first lady pay respects to Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick
Feb. 2, 2021, 7:44 PM PST
By Dartunorro Clark
President Joe Biden paid his respects to slain Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whose remains were given the rare distinction of lying in honor at the Capitol Rotunda on Tuesday evening.
Sicknick's cremated remains arrived on the East Front of the Capitol and were placed in the Rotunda overnight to allow his colleagues and lawmakers to honor him.
Biden and first lady Jill Biden held their hands to their hearts and the president made the sign of the cross as they stood near Sicknick's urn and a folded American flag.
"This flag was flown over the United States Capitol by The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, honoring the distinguished life and service of Officer Brian D. Sicknick. January 7, 2021," reads a plaque on the frame holding the flag.
🇺🇸
My vocabulary is ten times better than yours Olinski etc. and Mooslimb and chinks
Plus it made me point
Blogger Roger Amick said...
My vocabulary is ten times better than yours Olinski etc. and Mooslimb and chinks
February 3, 2021 at 3:24 PM
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Plus it made me point
Imma just leave this.
lol
Post a Comment