LAW PROPOSED TO PREVENT SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP

A Congressman is proposing a law that will make it illegal for social media to censor their users

thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/conservative-paul-nehlen-proposes-free-speech-legislation-for-social-media-giants/

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4407&context=ndlr
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/202
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

are social media websites considered public property

Nobody cares. It will never pass. Forcing private industry to become a bitch to consumers?
It

Will

Never

Pass

The case law would break the system. Look at the “sweetie honey poopsie snookums” cunt that everyone here was so obsessed with. Didn’t she sue Twitter over free speech and lose? It’s because somethings should be banned.
Mods suck here, but imagine how much worse this place would be without them. All that is, is a waste of time.

would support it if it also included the MSM

Supreme Court already ruled theyre an entertainment industry, not journalists

It may just be a small push to prove that the social media industry is now a utility, and as an utility they can not discriminate. I don't think this is the best way to go about it, because like you said it is a waste of time and will go no where. Congress needs to push them into admitting what they are (a utility) and then treat them as such.

Bump we should try and have this pass shills will try and slide this

I kind of like this idea, facebook and twitter would be funny as fuck. I just don't know if it's the right thing to do. So I could post pictures of my scrotum on facebook all day? I mean, I guess it's protected speech. I wouldn't do that, but you know what I mean.

I think the case law would have to rely on the court's decision in Marsh v. Alabama,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Basically the thinking would be that the more a private company opens its land to the public, particularly when creating a public forum, the more strongly the first amendment would apply. I would imagine some standard decency restrictions would still be enforced along with anti-harassment etc.

Yes fucking please

It actually is supported by them being "Common Carriers" As an example, AT&T didn't want to provide phones to an organization that they thought would use them for illegal gambling. The courts ordered them to provide the phones because AT&T could not discriminate on who was allowed to use their service since they were a "Common Carrier"

>restricting business

It'd be awesome if this passed. Fuck the kikes who want the leftists to keep their hug boxes.

no, but more importantly, do they operate in the public forum?

There are other examples of case law that apply, such as the following.

Common carriers have an obligation to provide service to any and all comers, except where service is clearly being used for illegal purposes. Movietime Inc v. NY Telephone Co., 277 App Div 1057, 101 NY Supp.2d 71 (2d Dept 1950). However, these grounds are very limited. In Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957) petitioner's phone service was disconnected because of the carrier's suspicion that the telephone would be used for illegal gambling transactions. The court directed that service be reinstated, finding that the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility." 170 NYS2d at 98.

And in a similar case, Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945), the court stated that absent illegal use, "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required." 53 NYS at 131. The court went on to quote approvingly of a California case (People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965) where the police exercised veto power over telephone installations. The California court, found the arrangement unenforceable and stated, "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands." --[NY p. 58]

>Law gets passed
>Post something "offensive" on german facebook
>Get censored by facebook staff as per orders of german government via EU proxy
>Sue american company for censorship in an american court
>Collect free money and collapse own government in the process
I love it.

Unfortunately necessary

How about make it illegal for someone to block someone else on social media

Brainlets Love blocking people

Can imagine passing something similar in the Eurogoy Union 2bh

Would be awesome if it were passed.

Again, Common Carriers can not discriminate.

Discrimination

For centuries, common carriage principles have played an important role in the infrastructure services of transportation and communications. They intended to guarantee that no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against... The prohibition on unreasonable discrimination is the most important component of the common carrier obligation.15 However, this is not absolute. Courts have recognized that some categorization of users is possible. "[A] specialized carrier whose service is of possible use to only a fraction of the population may nonetheless be a common carrier if he holds himself out to serve indifferently all potential users." -- Eli M. Noam, Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, 18 Telecom. Pol'y 435, Sec. II (1994).

The first common carrier case on record in English common law is of a ferryman in 1348. [133] Later cases discuss other common occupations such as innkeepers, [134] marshals, [135] and surgeons. [Y.B. 9 Ed. IV. 32 pl. 4.] These were common or public occupations at common law with an obligation to serve all at reasonable rates. 'If a man takes upon him a public employment, he is bound to serve the public as far as the employment extends; and for refusal an action lies, as against a farrier refusing to shoe a horse . . . Against an innkeeper refusing a guest when he has room . . . Against a carrier refusing to carry 646, 654 (1701), per C. J. Holt. In effect, this not being full.' Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld.Raym. 646, 654 (1701), per C. J. Holt. In effect, this early law of common or public callings was a forerunner of later government regulation of business, and these common callings were the first 'public service companies.' --[FCC 1981]

More at cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm

Looks promising, just need to add search engines to the list.

>2017
>STILL using the Jewcial Media
You faggots never learn.

I am all for this.
Since 2015 I have taken bans for using the word faggot, taken another for using the word nigger. Taken at least 8 more for hurting various people's feelings without any remorse and it's all within the last 2 years.
All of my bans have been for 30 days from FB.
Since 2007 I have taken less bans on Sup Forums than I took in 2 years on FB

They'd only censor the offensive content in Germany so American laws wouldn't be violated.

This is going to result in literal shoah for Jews, when they lose control of the narrative its fucking over for them.

>web sites have to let their users post whatever toxic lies they want

FREEDOM WINNING!!!

(regulations to make me winning is winning for everyone!)

This should already be how it is, it isn't their fucking job to police speech in America, this isn't fucking Europe

>American law ending with american borders
>Not hiring the most jewish of us lawyers
US company, US rules. Double fun when it's a US citizen posting from Germany. Sure it has a slim chance of working, but an US court has successfully ordered an entire country to pay their debts to US citizens after the country went bankrupt, so I wouldn't rule anything out at this moment.

But they already let their users post toxic lies. Where the fuck have you been?

EXACTLY

REGULATIONS for corporations to make them treat all speech neutrally is FREEDOM and WINNING! We should call it Speech Neutrality regulations!


but regulations to make ISPs treat all network traffic neutrally is bullshit government jew cancer.

Because you have decent arguments, I’ll bump.
I’m going to try and explain what a nightmare it would become in a society that verges on enacting “hate speech laws”. Two examples; daily stormer and youtube. DS has been shoa’d from server after server, for enabling multiple people to create a culture of hate and violence.
That’s actually a good thing.
Otherwise ISIS or blm or another hate group (they all belong in the same boat to me) could utilize the same platforms to create more extremist behavior.
YT, it has de-monied anything adverisers don’t want to fund. That is consumerism. Google (owns yt) has more money than th federal reserve. They will buy all the people they need to force this not to happen.

Free speech only means the government won’t jail you. It has never meant any platform can become your personal soapbox. If something like this passed, and you wrote a letter to your local paper and they DIDNT print it, could you then sue them? Is the paper no longer news, and just another shitpost forum so you can say whatever you want, as long as your feelings aren’t hurt? Who’s going to read it? If faceberg couldn’t ban you for saying “death to everyone I don’t like” all it would devolve into is a platform for hate.

The whole idea is dumb, won’t pass, and an excuse for some one to pretend like they are working.

i hope you're trolling because you sound like a fucking idiot

>literally wants other people to make all his decisions and judgements for him

You have untapped talent and potential user, you're [spoiler]autistic.

It's a nice idea but I don't see how it would be constitutional. Not that our government gives a shit about the constitution.

wait, i can't say nigger on facebook? are you joking? i dont really use facebook, but im curious

He is a retard

You burgers need to pass this. Keep an eye on it, support it and ignore the Jews and shills saying that it will never pass. This is a massive potential boon for us.

PAUL FUCKING NEHLEN!

Ryan's replacement!

yea but what does it say about ISPs and domain registrars?

The issue is, that once they start to filter speech they disagree with, they become responsible for everything else that is on their site. Let's take Antifa, BAMN, and BLM as an example. If they filter "hate speech" that criticizes these organizations or their actions, and allow those organizations to continue to use their platform to spew their own "hate speech", they have thus endorsed those organizations. This endorsement could lead them to a legal hot seat where they become responsible for supporting organizations that cause harm. If they filter speech then they can not claim to be common carriers, therefore they could be held responsible for others actions

Nehlen isn't in Congress, not yet anyway. Stoll this is a good idea, it would literally destroy Jewish media control. Any online space that isn't constantly curated and censored drifts right, because Leftism relies on ignoring obvious realities (such as racial inequality, sex inequality, etc). If Whites are able to express themselves freely then the game is up for the kikes online.

Any good ideas on how to support this?

They are now utilities. They are vital in modern life. If at&t doesnt like my opinions they can't turn off my phone. Social media needs to be handled the same way. And social media is already governed in the eu.

>suddenly leftists are pro private property

ISIS and BLM are already allowed to operate freely online. More effort went into silencing a fat joke than goes into disrupting terrorist organizations.
Free speech is bigger than the 1st Amendment, only literal retards conflate the two.

the Eu already governs social media. They actually want more censorship, but the fact remains that they are being governed already.

Double trips ftw
They act like monopolies, force utility status onto them.

Please fucking pass, also this dude is super fucking redpilled on twatter

Its funny how Sup Forums supports social media becoming common carriers but not ISPs

>They are vital in modern life.
why are cityfags so fucking full of themselves

>free to share any ideas with people who choose to engage with you
>government regulated internet

Am I missing something?

>censoring the censor
Taking bets on Supreme Court ruling censoring social media posts is protected free speech since everything you publish via Social Media is actually the material of the Social media companies and what they choose to publish is a matter of speech since they choose to publish and since speech also includes deciding what to publish it must also follow that regulation of what social media publishes is a violation of the first amendment rights of those companies.

This will not end well.

>Government regulating an internet based service
>Government regulating the internet

Am I?

what if I told you the 2nd amendmant is a government regulation?

Common carrier is a status of operation and not necessarily a law. Don't conflate common carrier with only being telecom. Inns are considered to be common carriers. ISPs can still be held to common carrier status without being covered under FCC regulations.

You and the rest of Sup Forums must be retarded. Social Media are private companies. They are allowed to do what they want. If you don't like it, go make your own Facebook

They are utilities only in your mind. They are, in reality, shitpost forums. They just have more moderation than this one.
Utilities produce a tangible asset. Power, water, trash removal.
Dumb opinions aren’t worth anything and certainly are not tangible. Given net neutrality’s recent upheaval all these places would just be an add on service. Nobody sane is going to pay an additional $20 a month to get every moronic idea, shoved into their inbox daily.

It’s a great idea on paper, like communism. Like communism, it will never work due to the fallibility of people.

Tell that to the Christian baker, or a restaurant that doesn't want to serve blacks.

But one regulation makes it so I can share my views while the other is anti free market and could theoretically be abused by the government.
One that they couldn't reasonably use to oppress me.

>Social Media are private companies

So are Inns, yet they must allow anyone (within reason) to stay, and can't discriminate

>i hate government regulation, except the ones Sup Forums likes but I hate the ones Sup Forums doesnt like because *yacketysax starts playing as user runs in circles in fast motion*

Hmmm, now I'm not sure. There's nothing stopping someone from creating a social media site that doesn't censor anything, that could also exist with ones that do. I'm retarded.

this is the unconstitutional argument used to force niggers into white schools and force white people to accept niggers in their hotels and bars.

fuck off marxist cunt

>It’s a great idea on paper, like communism.

This is based on centuries of common law. It's not about communism, but instead based on a reasonable sense of fairness, where companies should not be allowed to arbitrarily discriminate.

You can share your views in some other social media platform.
You can't share your views well or at all with bad Internet.

Inns can and will discriminate.

>There's nothing stopping someone from creating a social media site that doesn't censor anything

There's nothing stopping someone from opening up a bakery that bakes cakes for gays. Censoring lawful speech, be it by governments or corporations, shouldn't be allowed, especially if those corporations hold a near monopoly in the industry.

>what if I told you the 2nd amendmant is a government regulation?

Ending the Second Amendment Jew REGULATIONS is FREEDOM WINNING and FREE MARKET VICTORY over reddit communism Obango.

The same argument can be used in favor of Net Neutrality.

You’re whole common law argument is based on utilities.
Utilities produce needful things that you can see and use.
The world was perfectly fine before shitpost forums.

They aren’t utilities because they produce nothing valuable. People can’t survive without water. You’re going to be just fine without seeing aunt Ruby’s cat videos.
Your whole argument is invalid because shitpost forums aren’t utilities.

>Nobody cares. It will never pass. Forcing private industry to become a bitch to consumers?
It
Why the fuck do you NOT want it to pass?

MAGA BROTHERS UNITE

>hurr durr people can survive without telephones

>the government can't police ""extreeemist"" speech
>so private companies should be able to

>dumb Sup Forumstard arguing against his own interests

Porn and cringe
It will never pass

Communication is an utility. It is a critical requirement for the democratic process. If the methods of general public communication shifts from mail and telephone to internet and social media, it needs to be recongnized as such, as otherwise you end up with private companies having power over what gets to be publically said and what not, which would subsequently allow them to completely control how the government is elected. There is a reason why both of the former leaders of France and Italy were owners of the largest media networks in their countries and Angela Merkel is a personal friend of the largest two publishers in Germany.

Also eternal reminder these laws need to cover videogames as well

Developers are banning players from games who pay $60 to purchase simply because words are uttered the snowflake devs didnt like.

In other words: thievery.

>Inns can and will discriminate.

The innkeeper having taken upon himself a public employment
must serve the public. His first duty is to receive indifferently
to his hotel as guests such travellers as may ask for entertainment.
He has no general right to select his guests. This is
not the result of a contract, but it is a duty imposed by law for a
violation of which the innkeeper is liable in such damages as will
compensate the traveller for the wrong, and punitive damages
in addition if there are aggravating circumstances

Curtis v. Murphy
scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4407&context=ndlr

>it's in my interest for the government to force businesses to behave the way they want you to behave
no. if the supreme court didn't use this argument, we still would have segregated schools and workplaces in the U.S, but thanks to your colossal cuckoldry America is essentially a european welfare state at this point.

Your mom operates in a public forum

Communists do not approve.

Ah! So the classic Jewish subversion tactics!

Nigger detected, make your own game "m8"

No, Common Carriage laws are separate from laws regarding utilities and monopolies. Common carrier laws go all the way back to Egyptian and Roman times

you in the pink

Never miss an opportunity to hold your adversary to their own rules, you dumb faggot.

Then, every platform becomes a shitpost forum. We no longer get news, because news agencies can only report on what people (who don’t even purchase their services) force them to print.
It’s pointless. If you’re mad you can’t say nigger on Facebook, just delete your account.
The argument is a wast of time and resources. Especially trying to force a capatlistic society to be a mouthpiece for everyone’s stupid ideas.
Especially after the removal of NN, you’ll just be forced to pay for them accommodating you being able to shitpost.
That’s how reality works.

>Google (owns yt) has more money than th federal reserve
You clearly don't understand what the Federal reserve is.

Interesting, actually. I stand corrected.
Yet, if my reading is correct, this is solely because of providing a public utility.

So much for competition.

I thought you supported free market? That means you have NO RIGHT to interfere with how other people run their business. I knew right wingers were hypocrites, but god damn.

because hes a fucking shill

it's only for the big social media platforms, faggot

if you want your own little commie safe space webpage, make one and you can censor le ebil nazi racists to your heart's content

or move to another country where they dont respect freedom

She was harassing another user and that user is the one that took action, not the company.

This legislation and carry reciprocity is the natural consequence of gay marriage and gay cakes.

I'm therefore of a mixed mind now.

Ultimately the degeneracy costs are too high but it's a fine line to walk.

Your chart is shit, I'm a transhumanist feminist, there's no overlap on the chart which means it shouldn't be possible.

Fix this immediately, I demand to be considered more harmful than a mere feminist.

>Yet, if my reading is correct, this is solely because of providing a public utility.

No, it's not only limited to them providing a utility. It's that they provide a public service

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences
(a) Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
(b) Charges or services included
Charges or services, whenever referred to in this chapter, include charges for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting or incidental to radio communication of any kind

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/202

in my opinion the baker should bake the cake but they do not have to engage with any part of the baking or decorating process that constitutes speech that they do not want to partake in

such as writing "we r 4 fags" in icing or making the cake a layered faggot rainbow

You can be jailed for Facebook posts where you live. What you say has merit, but you live in gommunisim, goy.
No one is restricting your ability to communicate. If you want the ability to say whatever you want, make your own platform.
Shitpost forums aren’t common carries anymore than they are utility companies.

Public service, then. In this case, decent lodging.
Still need to conflate shitposting on the web with public service.

Lol
People in your country get jailed for Twitter posts, faglord. You have no room to speak.