Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Captioning performed by vitac i think a lot of the sites that were all concerned about, i dont think should be entitled to section 230 protections. The problem is, section 230 is often decided at a very early stage. So theres no discovery to determine whether the platform has contributed to the development of the content that doesnt receive section 230 protections. I would like to see a standard where the judge believes theres reasonable cause that its contributed to the content. We do that for personal jurisdiction. I think that would be a way to go after the bad actors that never should be getting protected by section 230 while still preserving protections for the sites that really are not contributing to the material. Thats one thing. The second is, i hear from people on all sides about various issues with 230 ranging from there shouldnt be any moderation to there shouldnt be any protection at all. This is all a
Cooperate to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argument so let me focus on whats different about texas. One thing thats different abtexas is its definition of social media platforms excludes website. We can put the gmail issue to one side when talk about texas. It also excludes websites primarily focused on news, sports and entertainment. In the First Amendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the reasons this statute is unconstitutional. The other thing thats different is that in some respects this statute operates more simply because it forebids my clines from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Were used to thinking that viewpoint discrimination is a bad thing and the government shouldnt do it. And of course when governments do it it is a bad thing. When editors of speakers engage in viewpoint discrimination that is their First Amendment right. It is also absolutely vital to the operation of these websites because if you have to be viewpoint n
They have to keep it separate in their mind. Issue a ruling. This runs about 2 1 2 hours. Cooperate to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argument so let me focus on whats different about texas. One thing thats different abtexas is its definition of social media platforms excludes website. We can put the gmail issue to one side when talk about texas. It also excludes websites primarily focused on news, sports and entertainment. In the First Amendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the reasons this statute is unconstitutional. The other thing thats different is that in some respects this statute operates more simply because it forebids my clines from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Were used to thinking that viewpoint discrimination is a bad thing and the government shouldnt do it. And of course when governments do it it is a bad thing. When editors of speakers engage in viewpoint discrimination that is their First Amendment right. It is also
This runs about 2 1 2 hours. Cooperate to proceed as if i wasnt here for the first argume so let me focus on whats different about texas. One thing thats different abtexas is its definition of social med platforms excludes website. We can put the gmail issue to one side when talk about texas. It also cles websites primarily focused on news, sports and entertainment. In the fstmendment business we call that contentbased discrimination. Thats one of the reasons this statute i unconstitutional. Thother thing thats different is that in some respects this stut operates more simply because it forebids my clines from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Were used to thinking that viewpoint discrimination is a bad thi a the government shouldnt dot. And of course when govnmts do it it is a bad thing. When editors ofpeers engage in viewpoint discrimination that is their First Amendment right. It is also absolutely vital to the operation of these websites because if you have to be viewpoint neut
R. T. Dot com ill be back with the headlines in around an hour in the meantime here on r. T. Sophia and code looks at the repercussions of trumps Jerusalem Decision stay tuned for that. Shavar not say the u. S. Decision to recognize jerusalem as israels capital has been condemned as illegal around the world even by americas own allies well this mean for the Palestinian Conflict well i asked former head of the Un International Law Commission Christian Thomas shot. Palestinian conflict is heating up once again with. Russia over the west bank clerics in gaza calling for a general uprising against israel what will. Help accomplish in the middle east the world react to washington and the road to jerusalem spark that will ignite more bloodshed the. Question tom was shot former had of the u. N. International Law Commission welcome to the show its really great to have you on our program now mr summers that strongest move to recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel goes against the u. N. Se