The issue with 230 isn't that we would be forced to let cucks post here, it's that 230 means the site owners aren't liable for content we post. If I were to post a load of actionable libel and the website owners allowed it to stay up, they would be on the hook for it in the absence of 230. Perversely, this would lead to far greater censorship (though it would be politically relatively neutral) as website owners seek to shield themselves.
The rationale for modifying 230 is that in making editorial decisions, they are in effect acting as publishers, not hosts. It's a neat argument, and has probably been wargamed by pro lawyers, but there are very real risks to free expression if 230 falls.
Personally, I prefer the argument in Marsh v Alabama, that held that the First Amendment permitted a man to make speeches of which a company disapproved, on the streets of a town wholly owned by the company. It's a 'public square' argument and one I think would perhaps be harder to directly argue, but it would be an important and effective update that would prevent Big Tech censorship on constitutional grounds. Smaller, specialised outfits, like TD or Consume Product, would be unaffected as not being a 'public square'.
Another good one is the "public utility" argument- that search engines and major social media sites are in effect public utilities, and so the Constitution applies- the phone company can't cut you off because you tell racist jokes on their wires, for example. The argument is supported by statistics- that prof who says Google can engineer a 10% swing from results manipulation, how Breitbart have been downgraded by Google, etc. That directly addresses scale in its premise- this applies strictly to the oligopolies and not to us, Kiwi Farms, or Something Awful.
Giving these laws teeth would be similar to how anti-discrimination laws work now- while it is typically hard to prove that a decision was made based on a prohibited characteristic, if somebody files suit then a court will look at the evidence. Google may try to obfuscate with allegedly-neutral algo shifts, but in principle it's easy to see if it was organic or not. They can either publish their algorithm (they won't), pay hefty fines (they had better be hefty), or be forced to boost sites they once tried cancelling (eat crow, weirdos who sexually identify as manor houses)
Goodbye horses
Good catch, though I have to say ABC's online division seem a little fairer about guns than many other outlets- "semi-automatic weapon" isn't necessarily too much of a departure for them.
For instance, I went into this article expecting a screed about how when you're shot with a rifle that has black furniture, you're extra dead and your killer was a Nazi, but they simply say "it's because the AR-15 is the most common platform, mass shooters are generally not gun people and so they follow the crowd".
On the other hand, this does use "assault rifle" to refer to AR-15s, and tries to draw non-existent meaning from the fact that mass shooters have used the platform, and this uses the "AR-type assault rifle" line, which is very silly when referring to something that isn't an M-16.
Check my working here:
Google search for "assault rifle" on abcnews.go.com is here
I can't think of any appropriate response to the use of blinding lasers other than to engage them as a direct threat to life. If you can do so without killing, then so much the better, but it should be treated along the same lines as using a firearm.
Surely this is (rather dark) satire?
Time to send this to the advertisers. Keep pushing!
That is fucking perfect, lol
non-binary lives splatter
The basis of any charge against him is that he got onto the highway via an off-ramp (going down it the wrong way). Lying media has said he was driving in the wrong direction at the roadblock, he clearly wasn't.
The prosecution case hinges on showing a clear causal relationship between his decision enter a closed road and hitting a pedestrian. There's no chance of manslaughter charges, but some kind of death-by-dangerous-driving is on the cards. The prosecution will say "Imagine if this was roadworks, he would have ploughed into workers". His lawyers will say that roadworks would have lights and signs (even on a closed road). I think he'll probably get some kind of moderately-serious driving charge (relating to knowingly entering a closed road- even if it's closed for stupid reasons, you still can't do that), but there was no crime in hitting these clowns.
Of course, I think he should walk on basic moral grounds. Volenti non fit injuria / "assumption of risk" is an old legal principle that says people doing obviously dangerous things can't expect the law to step in for them when the consequences occur. These idiots did the following:
-Illegally obstructed a road, at one single point (no crowds, Dawit there had free run until he encountered them)
-Had no lights, or warning signs. The cars used to block the road were turned sideways. Stopping distance at his speed is hundreds of feet, and you can see him ram on the brakes (hazard lights come on on his model) well before impact.
-Gave him no choice as to direction- the roadway was obstructed, except for where these people were standing. He had to go that way.
-Presented a threat to his life- there are gunshots on the tape, and these mobs are violent at their criminal roadblocks, often carjacking or beating/murdering their victims.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Good riddance, rioting scum.
Ah, the Mattress Girl manoeuvre!
it's on now, lads.
"Siiigh. I'll call the coroner, Hilldawg, but with Foundation funds being what they are since... well, that thing that happened, we might not be able to stretch to the usual encouragement..."
The boy immediately to Jeb!'s left. Is that him from the meme "I need feminism because I shouldn't have to feel unmanly for enjoying my girlfriend's strapon"?
Probably not, as that was in Oxford, UK, but do they roll them off a production line somewhere? Who would mass produce soyboys?
Well smugg'd, my friend
Where's that picture of the crazy eyed guy pointing at a wall covered in clippings and red string?
Why doesn't she fuck off to SE Asia? If she has such a problem with white people, she ought to walk the fucking walk right back onto a container ship.
But I thought this was the game you wanted to play? Why the tears?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
For those saying "We shouldn't judge him before trial"- would he or his ilk extend that to you (or Brett Kavanaugh)? I don't think he did this, to be honest, but if those are the rules he thinks we all should live by, he ought to set an example. Confess to the ludicrous allegations made by your brain damaged sister, Adam- or should I say, Rape Blob.
I think the stronger argument is in Marsh vs. Alabama, that held that a company was not allowed to restrict political speech on streets the company owned (Marsh was agitating in a company-owned town). That, coupled with a public-utility definition of social media would crush this sort of interference without opening the can of worms that would result from abolishing section 230 (We would be in the shit if 230 fell).
And Twitter lets them cheer on the murderers of these kids.
You mean Digg?
The missile they used to waste him was fucking great- no explosives, but accurate enough that it will hit him, personally, after an air launch. How did it do the job? It extended six huge fucking blades out the sides and diced him into chunks. I feel slightly cheated that they didn't show us some pictures.
Remember citizen, the corridors of unaccountable power are not filled with paedophiles and their handlers/controllers. All that stuff is just conspiracy theory, it's a series of coincidences. No, don't look for links between these cases, don't look for common causes, there is no pattern.
One day I will run a 24 hour news channel of leftists getting thrashed by their proclaimed 'pets', all the while crying "But I'm on your siiiide".
Best part is with a load of these fucks going to prison, I can just get my footage by FOIAs to the department of corrections, all I would need to add is upbeat music, maybe the odd Batman-style "POW!" screen for seasonal specials.