Will you take the Covid Vaccine?

[Ingomike]

I'm sure that you found the opinions compelling. Fortunately for all of us, judges tend to understand the law (and history) better than you do.

Do you still hold the quaint notion that courts are not politicized?

 

[CampingJosh]

Do you still hold the quaint notion that courts are not politicized?

I think that Thomas, Sotomayor, and all the others in between would agree that 1A guarantees that site owners can choose what is published on their sites and that administrative rules and/or legislation can't change that.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well, I've decided to get the vaccine. Going tomorrow afternoon. Went to my doc of 35+ years and he was really on me about it today. He's pretty concerned about the Delta variant. I'm getting the Pfizer. Our youngest granddaughter is quarantining at our house right now because her dad and other grandma both have Covid. Between that and my doc, it finally convinced me.

 

[BigRed]

Well, I've decided to get the vaccine. Going tomorrow afternoon. Went to my doc of 35+ years and he was really on me about it today. He's pretty concerned about the Delta variant. I'm getting the Pfizer. Our youngest granddaughter is quarantining at our house right now because her dad and other grandma both have Covid. Between that and my doc, it finally convinced me.

I'll miss you.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'll miss you.

Then you're a lousy shot. I'm a pretty big target! (Yeah, he was on me about losing weight too.)

 

[BigRed]

Then you're a lousy shot. I'm a pretty big target! (Yeah, he was on me about losing weight too.)

This is why I always work with a female doc. If my doc gets on me, I don't want to feel wierd about it.

 

[nonobaddog]

Well, I've decided to get the vaccine. Going tomorrow afternoon. Went to my doc of 35+ years and he was really on me about it today. He's pretty concerned about the Delta variant. I'm getting the Pfizer. Our youngest granddaughter is quarantining at our house right now because her dad and other grandma both have Covid. Between that and my doc, it finally convinced me.

I hope it all goes smooth for you, like it did for me. I think the Pfizer is the best one, even better than the Moderna I got. Keep us posted about your experiences.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

DoggyMama just had me sign her up too.

 

[Ingomike]

I think that Thomas, Sotomayor, and all the others in between would agree that 1A guarantees that site owners can choose what is published on their sites and that administrative rules and/or legislation can't change that.

Oh yes it can, if they want liability protection from section 230. Otherwise they are no different the NYT, and are responsible for everything published on their site. That was how it was when it began but through power, money and political connections they have perverted the original intent.

So you are correct that they can choose what is published if they are a publisher, if they host an open forum then they cannot choose...

 

[CampingJosh]

Oh yes it can, if they want liability protection from section 230. Otherwise they are no different the NYT, and are responsible for everything published on their site. That was how it was when it began but through power, money and political connections they have perverted the original intent.

So you are correct that they can choose what is published if they are a publisher, if they host an open forum then they cannot choose...

NYT is responsible for anything they write. NYT is not responsible for anything that some random person writes in the comments.

No law or regulation compels any private entity to host any speech that they don't want to. There are no "open forums" in private spaces. An act of Congress can't undo the protections of the First Amendment.

A single entity can be both a publisher and a platform; nearly every news/info site is. Any article that allows third-party comments is functioning in both roles, from NYT to Fox News to Ammoland. The article is publisher content, and the comments are platform content. Platforms can be moderated and still have liability protections re: third-party content (comments, user posts, etc.).

 

[Ingomike]

NYT is responsible for anything they write. NYT is not responsible for anything that some random person writes in the comments.

No law or regulation compels any private entity to host any speech that they don't want to. There are no "open forums" in private spaces. An act of Congress can't undo the protections of the First Amendment.

A single entity can be both a publisher and a platform; nearly every news/info site is. Any article that allows third-party comments is functioning in both roles, from NYT to Fox News to Ammoland. The article is publisher content, and the comments are platform content. Platforms can be moderated and still have liability protections re: third-party content (comments, user posts, etc.).

You are just flat out wrong on the intent of the law. Yes NYT is responsible for what they write and without section 230 would be responsible for comments posted on their site. However, section 230 was not intended that they would police the comments and have protections. Section 230 was exactly because the sites said they could not police comments and needed protections which obviously they have the ability to police those comments now, because they are, and no longer need the protections.

It was an act of congress that gave them the protections of section 230 that they claim they cannot live without and an act of Congress can remove them. The NYT can just shut off comments if they wish, but FB and Titters is just comments, an open forum. They asked for 230 protections so they were not responsible for comments but now police for political reasons while enjoying protections.

 

[JettaKnight]

DoggyMama just had me sign her up too.

I was talking with a guy tonight - strong, guy, fit and healthy - spent over a week in the hospital for double pneumonia brought on from COVID19. For a while there they weren't sure he would pull through.

At the time, he was looking into which shot to get (checking the data, doing research, waiting for more studies), and figured if he made to this point, he still had time to decide...

 

[MRockwell]

 

[MRockwell]

 

[ghuns]

This checks out.

I have a glass of bourbon almost daily. And by that I mean some days, I have more than one.

I have yet to contract the 'Rona despite ignoring most all of the various precautions recommended by "the experts".

 

[jamil]

That is amazing, a brazen violation of the First Amendment, and naked compliance to the groupthink media machine. I studied Journalism at IU, and over the last 20 years have witnessed what can only be called the death of Journalism, as all good and valid reporting has been branded as "conspiracy theory." People don't read anymore, they tweet, like and follow ... this is the Brave New World we've feared for decades.

You studied journalism, yet you still think that Reddit can violate the First Amendment? Seriously?

Wait. What's really there to scoff at? The main idea in that post isn't really what you're complaining about. People sometimes start believing colloquial speech literally. I don't know if he believes that a private company banning speech really violates the constitution. Obviously the constitution limits government not private business. But that's not really what the post was about. It violates the idea of free speech. Never in the internet age have we had this level of bias in the public square where all the major social media sites work vigorously together to control conversation to this degree. That you only complain about him invoking the 1A makes me wonder if you're trying to disparage the idea of the post by conflating one part that isn't even the main idea.

The media has declared some topics unspeakable. That is not healthy for a free society. The spirit of free speech has been unbroken by social media until Trump became president. And then they started censoring right of center viewpoints. Along with that is the media's complicit behavior. It is relevant that he says journalism is dead, because it is. It's now narrative vs narrative to an extent that I've not seen in my lifetime.

I think that's the main point. So argue against that if you have something to argue about.

 

[jamil]

There you go again! Just can't help yourself. Another post besmirching a source without ANYTHING to go on.

But you quote Pravda, oops, NPR as if they are pure as the driven snow.

Identifying the bias in a source is necessary. Generally, if they have a reason to lie, then we should be skeptical. But, if they have a reason to lie doesn't mean they did lie. It just means you can't trust what they report at face value. It takes further verification. We shouldn't just assume it's true just because it says what you want it to say. But also, we shouldn't assume it's a lie just because it says something we don't want it to say. But if I can't verify such a source independently, I'll leave my skepticism intact.

 

[jamil]

And to think that Reddit is even close to journalism...

Journalism isn't dying because good journalism is labeled conspiratorial, but because people are accepting junk articles full of conspiracies and biased reporting.

Does "studied journalism" mean took an elective? Because then I studied economy at Purdue, but the only thing I remember is what building that class was in twenty years ago.

People colloquially widen topics to include peripheral issues. Being censored on reddit is related to journalists censoring ideas that don't fit the story they want told.

And you're wrong about journalism dying. It's not dying. What's dying about it is the so-called fourth estate. The institution of organized corporate journalism. The internet has made it possible for everyone to be journalists. We don't need the fourth estate anymore. And, desperate to survive, they're using fourth estate type tactics to stay afloat. The impact of that is further censorship of ideas that don't support them.

Also. Why pick on "studied journalism". I didn't see that as the important part of that post. He says journalism is dead. I think a reasonable interpretation of that is the idea of telling the truth in journalism is dead. I don't need to have studied journalism, or even taken an elective class in college to notice that.

 

[jamil]

Do you think that INGO moderation is illegal?

INGO conduct is moderated. Content is not, other than generally "family friendly". The 230 protections mean that INGO can't get sued for what other people post (except for what's illegal). If you post claiming that HCQ cures the herpes, a lawsuit against INGO is not gonna work. But, if INGO claims 230 protections, and it bans people from saying Ivermectin cures the herpes, but allows people to say HCQ cures it, then the 230 protections don't apply.

The thing that may protect the tech giants from losing 230 protections is that they're using "science" as a shield. But, they're dancing on the left of that fence too. Not all science agrees with them. The CDC has their backs though.

 

[jamil]

I think that Thomas, Sotomayor, and all the others in between would agree that 1A guarantees that site owners can choose what is published on their sites and that administrative rules and/or legislation can't change that.

There's already precedence on 230 protections. If you moderate content, you're a publisher and therefor 230 protections won't help you if someone sues you. You can moderate behavior. You can't censor content. Banning someone for calling someone a ************ isn't censorship.