Coronavirus - are we all doomed? (1 Viewer)

I see your point. But, I do think it is good to let 'platform'-based organizations be shielded from most liability. Because it is so different the idea of creating content vs. just passing it along.
 
pisorsisaac@gmail.co said:
I see your point. But, I do think it is good to let 'platform'-based organizations be shielded from most liability. Because it is so different the idea of creating content vs. just passing it along.
Click to expand...
As long as they are left leaning, the minute a Fox news style media appears that will no longer be tolerated.

I am not intentionally arguing with you, it's just reality.
 
No worries at all. I don't mind. I don't think it will be as bad as all that. Desire to accomodate and have users will supersede in the end. I have no trouble using Google for conservative purposes, nor my Cox internet. People might have worried the same would be true for that as well. If we allowed org's who are pure content passers-through, to be constantly sued, they (and the internet) would cease to exist. I think that law is basically a necessity to allow companies to feel free to host content without being liable for the content.
Who knows - maybe if what you said comes true, then the market will drive a new platform to come into being, one that's more conservative, or more agnostic. Who knows.
 
The whole thing was made worse by the USA's FCC decision to terminate net neutrality. Fewer regulations on the carrier means they get to do more of what they want even if what they want isn't necessarily good for the public.
 
I may have to read up on that. I am not so familiar with that one.
 
Here it is, in a nutshell, from a well-known nut.

Net neutrality vs. its opposite has to do with how you treat ISPs - as simple service providers or as common carriers under interstate commerce laws. Look at the 3rd-5th paragraphs in the first heading under this link.

en.wikipedia.org

Net neutrality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
from the Wiki: >>> The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 <<<

... in 2003 I had a law school Civ Pro professor at TJSL, she was all about the up and coming field of internet law. I can only imagine the sheer volumes of legal content that have been filled since then! I am sure they would fill a library. An exciting field to be sure.
 
pisorsisaac@gmail.co said:
As for the orange clown, he's already moved on to trying to regulate social media, as some of them have finally started reacting to his ridiculousness with some amount of censorship and/or clarifications. I think the sad reality is that coronavirus continues steadily in many areas, but he needs something new to distract! I can't believe it took Twitter 4 years to stop kowtowing to him, but then again … as you already know, he gets away with alooot. Some times he seems like a 3 yr old in a big man's body. I think being told "no" will do wonders for his maturation - much like an insolent child.
Click to expand...
Your post presents a challenge for responding.
  1. Trump is wrong with his threat to "regulate" social media and pointing that out is legitimate.
  2. To say that COVID-19 continues in many areas is a vacuous truth. That is like saying that people will continue to die through auto accidents. Therefore Trump can be blamed for creating this "distraction". Auto accident deaths are part of regular risk in driving on the highway. Who the President is, is basically irrelevant.
  3. The media is in outright war against Trump; they do not respect truth. While it is appropriate to call-out Trump for his inappropriate attempt to silence social media, there should be an equal if not more vigorous public push against these media abuses for attempting to censor conservative thought. The Washington Post and the New York Times, supposedly bastions of free speech purposely misconstrue and/or ignore conservative talking points. They act as the propaganda arm for the Democratic Party. On one hand, we see Trump respond to these manufactured attacks with a degree of unrestrained anger, but some commenting on Trumps obvious anger don't seem to take into account the constant barrage of unjustivied attacks on Trump (such as the attempted coup) including the need to condemn those inappropriately condemning Trump.
In summary, Trump is wrong with making a threat to suppress Twitter. Nevertheless, just as much time and effort should be devoted to condemning Twitter (and other media) for their brazen attempt to stack the deck against Trump.
 
Steve R. said:
In summary, Trump is wrong with making a threat to suppress Twitter. Nevertheless, just as much time and effort should be devoted to condemning Twitter (and other media) for their brazen attempt to stack the deck against Trump.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Fair enough - I agree with much of what you have said. I guess my personal take on it is that, well, and this is only really addressing the 'legal' aspect of it admittedly,,the difference between the two is that one is actually wrong in the sense that he is about to try to do something that really should be illegal, or something along those lines, he is about to use his 'legal powers' to coerce something that ought not be.
Whereas news organizations are not guaranteed nor expected to be legally bound to any particular position NOR the absence thereof. They are and ought to be free to run their organizations as they see fit, political leanings and all. (my opinion).
And Fox is huge, successful, and does a reasonable job counteracting them - I mean it's not like there is zero counter effect.

I guess I would go as far as to agree with the points you are making on a moral level. To whatever extent the news organizations are knowingly twisting and perverting the facts or circumstances, that is certainly always a disappointment from what we expect from a good news organization. I am just thinking at more of a lawful level, but both perspectives are valuable.

One thing is sure - any notion that news organizations, including conservative ones, are neutral is long gone I guess.
 
If each state is deciding on its own policies regarding the virus, that's 50 little governments doing roughly the same thing. Presumably, each state controls most things within its borders.
That begs the question - what does Trump do exactly? We see he spends a lot of time arguing with the media, he says stupid things on Twitter, and he speaks sometimes to the press at the White House. He also signs things with a big black crayon and holds it up to show he can write his name.
Does he do anything useful?
Col
 
Getting federal judges appointed is a big one that presidents still do.
 
ColinEssex said:
If each state is deciding on its own policies regarding the virus, that's 50 little governments doing roughly the same thing. Presumably, each state controls most things within its borders.
Click to expand...
There is tremendous irony in what you say. The federal government is supposed to be limited. Under the US Constitution, the powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. The federal government is supposed to be limited in scope. But over the years (mission creep) federal power has grown.

The irony is that when something like a pandemic hits the US everyone starts hysterically screaming that the federal government must do something. When there is no crisis, many complain the the President, in this case Trump, is acting dictatorial. Yet, when you look at the actions of some state governors, such as the Governor of Michigan (Gretchen Whitmer), they are the ones behaving as dictators.

PS: Just remembered this Trump malapropism. Trump said that he would let the governors decide when to remove the COVID-19 restrictions in their states. Well, that comment was out-of-place since it is a state power and not a federal power.
--------------------------------------------------
You may complain about Trump making stupid comments, which he has on occasion; but you are overlooking the fact that Trump is being vilely attacked by the media. I hope that you have heard some of the incredibly loaded biased purported questions (actually accusations in disguise) that some reporters have made. Some of your anti-Trump angst needs to be pointed at those reporters and Twitter for attempting to suppress free speech. I believe that you might find the media in the US to be worse than Trump.
 
Last edited:
I get it now. If it's a huge national problem like the virus then the Orange Clown allows the states to deal with it, then Trump can blame them if it goes tits up. Then, if it's a war somewhere, then Trump appears to organise it so if the USA should quell the uprising, he can take the credit for being a patriotic president. Sad thing is, the USA doesn't win many wars, but enjoys trying and napalming innocent people.
Col
 
Actually, Col, your question focuses on the part where lawyers make money - in the cracks between state and federal issues. It is often in the "points of contact" between federal and state power that collisions of rights occur. In this case, corona virus exposes the issues related to individual rights or freedoms (as guaranteed in the Federal constitution) in conflict with state-ordered lock downs, mandatory social isolation, and other safety measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Using MS Access with WAR File
Replies
2
Views
257
sonic8
S
Jon
The Secret Service - fit for purpose?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1,137
Isaac
Isaac
Cotswold
Is there a Plan?
Replies
5
Views
299
The_Doc_Man
The_Doc_Man
Jon
Covid Wuhan Lab Leak or Wet Market - which is the real conspiracy theory?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2,230
Jon
Jon
Steve R.
The Effect of Trump's Win on Foreign Policy
Replies
1
Views
98
Isaac
Isaac

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom