Again, Sect 230 isn't going to "Be Revoked" before the election is over.
So the start of this fight is to get lawful action now, and enforce the straight laws now, not argue about how 230 needs changing or is completely unconstitutional in the first place.
Section 230 isn't even being revoked, and it doesn't need to be.
It needs to be clarified, which Ajit Pai has said he has the authority to do and will be doing so.
The discussion still starts with 230 nonetheless.
Stop reading posts and inferring things from them that aren't being said.
Revoking protections isn't revoking (or repealing) 230. It's saying that they're a publisher, not a platform, and they get to be liable for all the terrorists they let roam free, all the child pornography that is likely still on there, etc.
[Redpill] If say tomorrow, they "reinterpret" 230 to not give protections, then the crimes under 230 committed before tomorrow get to hide under the old interpretation. i.e. this is like giving bad big tech a pardon for all their crimes covered under 230 to date.
[Redpill] The whole "publisher vs Platform" arguement is bluepill garbage. The gov doesn't have the power to grant them immunity to crimes like that.
[Redpill] hey are committing crimes, including crimes which have nothing to do with 230 "protections".
[Redpill] 230 is garbage, it needs to be striken down by the Courts, AND the High Court needs to strike down the ASHWANDER RULES; but this isn't going to happen anyday soon, definately not pre-election.
The E.O. can do what people want when they talk about 230. Enforcing other REAL laws, will ENRON, bad big tech, without any bluepills of anti-trust, utility regulation, or 230 immunities/etc.
Again, Sect 230 isn't going to "Be Revoked" before the election is over.
So the start of this fight is to get lawful action now, and enforce the straight laws now, not argue about how 230 needs changing or is completely unconstitutional in the first place.
Section 230 isn't even being revoked, and it doesn't need to be.
It needs to be clarified, which Ajit Pai has said he has the authority to do and will be doing so.
The discussion still starts with 230 nonetheless.
Stop reading posts and inferring things from them that aren't being said.
Revoking protections isn't revoking (or repealing) 230. It's saying that they're a publisher, not a platform, and they get to be liable for all the terrorists they let roam free, all the child pornography that is likely still on there, etc.
[Redpill] If say tomorrow, they "reinterpret" 230 to not give protections, then the crimes under 230 committed before tomorrow get to hide under the old interpretation. i.e. this is like giving bad big tech a pardon for all their crimes covered under 230 to date.
[Redpill] The whole "publisher vs Platform" arguement is bluepill garbage. The gov doesn't have the power to grant them immunity to crimes like that.
[Redpill] hey are committing crimes, including crimes which have nothing to do with 230 "protections".
[Redpill] 230 is garbage, it needs to be striken down by the Courts, AND the High Court needs to strike down the ASHWANDER RULES; but this isn't going to happen anyday soon, definately not pre-election.
The E.O. can do what people want when they talk about 230. Enforcing other REAL laws, will ENRON, bad big tech, without any bluepills of anti-trust, utility regulation, or 230 immunities/etc.
Ex Post Facto does not necessarily apply here. Clarification does not automatically excuse actions made before the clarification was made.
This is not the same as in criminal cases where laws have changed after the action.