Most people still think this. The only people who don't are those in thrall to one particular cult of personality.
Also, do other jurisdictions have obscure election interference laws they never use? Does Delaware? I bet they do.
> (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
> 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.
Section 230(c)(2)(A) separately disclaims the relayer (whether website or user) of liability arising from actions of "good faith" restrictions of access to online third-party content (such as removal thereof) that the relayer considers to be "otherwise objectionable". Content that violates terms of service falls under "otherwise objectionable", and so does content that the would-be relayer is biased against. Section 230(c)(2)(B) disclaims the relayer of liability for actions of granting someone the technical means to restrict access to online third-party content. Nowhere does Section 230(c)(2) act as a legal condition on which Section 230(c)(1) protections depend [1].
> (2)Civil liability
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
> (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
> (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
The authors of Section 230 were Senators Ron Wyden and Chris Cox in 1996. Here's Ron Wyden in 2023 explaining the function of Section 230 [2]:
> I wanted to take a few minutes to share my thoughts on why Section 230 remains vital to a functioning internet - and how the Supreme Court oral arguments and briefs in Gonzalez v. Google helped make the case for 230.
> First of all, Section 230 is a law that Chris Cox and I wrote. It essentially says that the person who creates a piece of content online is the one responsible for it.
> As a result of 230 and the First Amendment, websites are able to take down posts they don’t want — stuff like hate speech and violent content and other muck — and elevate other posts.
> So much of the focus on Section 230 is on the big social media companies. But my goal with 230 is protecting two groups: First, users, who want to be able to speak online and to access interesting content. And second, the startups and small sites that want to compete with the incumbents — whether that’s going up against big cable or big tech. Everyone from Wikipedia to Reddit to a knitting message board.
> It’s what allows sites to host controversial content without fear of being deluged with lawsuits.
Later on regarding proposed changes to Section 230, Wyden says [2]:
> There may be ways to change Section 230 to make it clearer about what the law is supposed to protect, and what it isn’t. I’m constantly evaluating ways to make the internet a better place for users. But as the son of a journalist I can’t support any bill that narrows the First Amendment in the process, or that discourages moderation. So far, the proposals on offer violate one or both of those principals.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
[2] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-remar...
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
Is your objection satisfied though? Do you recognize that dems don’t have an issue with prosecuting people fairly?
Or is there another objection.
That's just not how I think, and I don't believe it's how most people think. Most of us are really boring normies who don't like criminals and think people should follow the law and be tried in court when they don't.
If a prosecutor brings that evidence to a grand jury, they indict one or more people, and then those people are tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, then I think justice will have been done.
Oh, that's not true at all. The left is very happy to hold anyone accountable for breaking the law. It's the right that wants their idols to escape justice.
> More people detest both parties than like either one.
I also don't think that's true at all. Most people are indoctrinated into a party just like their faith.
Bob Menendez is still in the Senate.
Also, who the fk cares about the president’s son’s personal life? It is being prosecuted by the courts and the president said he won’t pardone him no matter the decision - as it should be. Nonetheless, it has absolutely no bearing on the president himself, and is some petty nonsense crime, not a goddamn coup attempt or treason. Are you just envious of his dick pic or what the hell do you care about that laptop? I swear there is absolutely no other rational reason for bringing this up.
That story was painted as a Russian hoax by federal agents who knew better. It was systematically suppressed on corporate and social media, and the people who were telling it were smeared. All right before an election that was extremely close.
And here you are saying it wasn't a big deal.
Besides, Joe Biden is currently incredibly complicit in atrocities and war crimes up to and including genocide and ethnic cleansing. I don't hear many Democrats calling for him to be held accountable.
> Get the fck out with this both sides bullshit,
Settle down, we don't talk like that here.
Sounds pretty standard US foreign policy, but interestingly it only matters now.
If Trump were the one lying about pics of beheaded babies, or vetoing UN ceasefires, Democrats would suddenly have empathy for the Palestinian people.
People who have empathy all the time have been decrying the Dems AND Republicans for decades. A lot of people were unhappy about Obama droning record numbers, and starting new wars - but we had little to no representation in media or Congress.
Same thing with the kids in cages at the border. It didn't stop being a thing, but Dems stopped talking about it once Biden got in again. The hypocrisy is astounding, but somehow Dem voters just don't remember to be mad or something.
You don't have to keep making my point; but by all means keep going if you like.
> Half the population wouldn't convict a certain candidate no matter what they did
Hunter Biden is being prosecuted, the government and voters don't care to prevent it, and he's not a candidate. What are you on about with Palestine, the UN, and fking Obama now?
You can't just list all the words you don't like and call that "making a point".
Yes, 4 years after intelligence agencies and papers of record told us that it was a Russian hoax.
> the government and voters don't care to prevent it
Again, a full Presidential term later.
> and he's not a candidate
I seem to remember him being closely related to one though, which some voters would actually find relevent. Especially when said relative is implicated in shady Ukraine deals.
> What are you on about with Palestine
Complicity in genocide, which is actually an international war crime which every person has a legal duty to fight against.
> the UN
That's where Biden vetoed 3 ceasefire agreements aimed at ending genocide - how did you not hear?
> and fking Obama now?
You can say 'fucking' you know... Obama was a fairly clear example of a Democrat who should have been prosecuted for war crimes, seeing as he was assassinating US citizens and many many brown people) without trial, starting wars, arming chainsaw dismembering dictators, etc. His VP was also very familiar, perhaps you don't remember who that was.
I love how you guys keep proving my point. It's also very very sad though.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Edit: we've had to warn you about this multiple times before, and you've been posting abusively in other places too (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40817954). If you don't want to be banned here, it would be good to fix this.
True - of both sides, which add up to about half the population. The Hunter Biden laptop stor, and how it was handled shows that, even if 25 % of the population doesn't want to believe it.
I think most of the other half would convict both. More people detest both parties than like either one. They might have no representation in media or Congress, but they still exist.