Jail Zuckerberg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html


Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html


Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.


Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html


Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without ****ing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.

On 2/19/2021 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html


Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.


Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without ****ing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.


We agree on your main argument.

Yes, these are private entities, but consider:

"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press..."

Congress did make Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act.
One might argue that the Act does, by denying access to the
civil courts for redress of torts, abridge freedom of speech.

I have drawn no breathless passionate conclusion yet. I'm
not convinced this law is wrong as written. Then again no
one but no one is interested in applying it as written either.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 10:00:25 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html


Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without ****ing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.

We agree on your main argument.

Yes, these are private entities, but consider:

"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press..."

Congress did make Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act.
One might argue that the Act does, by denying access to the
civil courts for redress of torts, abridge freedom of speech.

I have drawn no breathless passionate conclusion yet. I'm
not convinced this law is wrong as written. Then again no
one but no one is interested in applying it as written either.

No, the liability limitations do not prevent or compel speech. It's not a First Amendment issue, although it may be a Fifth Amendment/Fourteenth Amendment Due Process issue -- or even a Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, but considering all the federal liability protections out there -- from guns to planes to vaccines to COVID countermeasures -- I doubt any of those arguments have gotten traction, but I haven't looked. Section 230 clearly relates to interstate commerce -- or clearly enough. I don't see any basis for challenging federal power to make the law.

IMO, the entire issued could be remedied by repealing Section 230, which would effectively muzzle the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die. Win-win. Go back to reading the newspapers and watching non-defamatory YouTube videos on how to fix my backflow preventer. I have a Facebook page that I never visit; I don't Twitter and don't own stock in either of them. This is the sum-total of my internet presence, and small platforms like Usenet or bike bulletin boards can be moderated.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:

IMO, the entire issued could be remedied by repealing Section 230, which would effectively muzzle the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die. Win-win.

Not so fast - then you have to have some well-established and equally applied rules, which for all intents and purposes would constitute a) the gubmint dictating acceptable speech and b) the gubmint interfering the operation of a private business - both of which are anathema to conservatives. I think if you allow that to happen - effectively muzzling the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die - wouldn't be a win win at all. Again, one persons truth-to-power is another persons defamation.


-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 1:00:25 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html


Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without ****ing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.

We agree on your main argument.

Yes, these are private entities, but consider:

"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press..."

Congress did make Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act.
One might argue that the Act does, by denying access to the
civil courts for redress of torts, abridge freedom of speech.

I'd argue the exact opposite. By not allowing people to sue the megaphone manufacturer, the inherently protect the speech of the individual screaming into it. As I said, there are other methods of redress still available - the liable-ee can sue the liable-er without having to involve the megaphone. There is nothing in section 230 which suppresses the right of the offended to seek redress against the offender.

I have drawn no breathless passionate conclusion yet. I'm
not convinced this law is wrong as written. Then again no
one but no one is interested in applying it as written either.

The main point was a hands off approach by the gubmint. It doesn't take much effort to apply that.

Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html

Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.

However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.

What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Andre Jute
That's a good start for today.

On 2/26/2021 10:28 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html

Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.


The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.

However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.

What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Andre Jute
That's a good start for today.


Malice may be blatantly evident, even admittedly in the
extant case, but proving malice in a court of law is another
thing altogether.

On this side of the Atlantic, we think that's great, and a
bulwark around free speech despite its many and famous
abuses. On your side, opinions are very different and
there's no middle to our different cultures.

Further, this arrived in yesterday's mail:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/author/allumbokhari/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 4:57:33 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/26/2021 10:28 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html

Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.

However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.

What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Andre Jute
That's a good start for today.

Malice may be blatantly evident, even admittedly in the
extant case, but proving malice in a court of law is another
thing altogether.
..
That's because of the presumption that malice is absent in most newspapers, which is no longer the case, but once was near enough true (it was never 100% true). Remove the presumption and made the medium prove absence of malice, or public interest, and you've evened up the tilt of the playing field, away from the unrestrained power of the media and towards the victims of the media. The government is supposed to bring just evenly to everyone. I've never heard anyone claim that the Founders intended the media to have special privileges that are denied to other parties.
..
On this side of the Atlantic, we think that's great, and a
bulwark around free speech despite its many and famous
abuses. On your side, opinions are very different and
there's no middle to our different cultures.
..
Perhaps. I see it as a question of restoring a necessary balance. The balances I'm in favour of work very well here, in the UK and in France.

Further, this arrived in yesterday's mail:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/author/allumbokhari/

Thanks for that, Andrew. I've put Imprimis in my bookmarks folder "Good Reading". Bokhari favours an adjustment closer to what you want than my first version. (Hell, the man is so even-handed, I started reading from the beginning again, wondering if he understood the seriousness of the threat he was describing.) Fine, if that fits better with your culture, but Big Tech, and its gross impertinences against liberty and decency, doesn't stop at the American border.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

It's ironic: when the Berners-Lee internet first started up, I was hotly in favour, writing somewhere that it would "free Everyman from the editorial supervision and interference of people like us" (paraphrased). An old editor asked me, "What did you learn when you fought in the Congo 'for the freedom of our black brothers'?" He had me there; a few nights before I explained at his dinner table that the problem in Africa was that freedom for many meant the freedom to practice genocide on a neighbouring tribe without white men tut-tutting and holding enquires and handing out death sentences for mass murderers. The irony is that I was the target in one of the first attempted cancellations on the internet; that instead I cancelled the trash who harassed me doesn't change the irony. The old editor was right, and I was wrong. Essentially, the American Founders were right to fear the mob, and and arrange to have their -- er -- enthusiasms filtered through slower-moving institutions. But that's yesterday's error; I was much younger and less experienced then. Still, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Big Tech is a mindless vigilante mob that should be restrained, and a time isn't far off when restraint will not be enough. The other key thing I took away from Bokharu is how fast things move in the online world, a platitude but in this case of the essence because Big Tech is the Manchurian Candidate already installed in our midst.

Andre Jute
My first computer had glowing thermionic tubes and lived behind an airlock in a temperature- and humidity-controlled space.