Liberal Losers

[HogDawg]

You're the lawyer, you tell me. Does it meet the Section 230 definition of an interactive computer service? If so, does it attempt to exercise editorial control over the content beyond what is considered obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harrassing, or otherwise objectionable? If the answer to those two questions is yes, then it would seem to me that it meets the definition of a publisher.

boom. game over. Well done, glm47.



I swear debating "Johnnylightintheshorts" and Guissy, the out of work lawyer, just doesn't seem fair to them sometimes.

[HogDawg]

Who gives a shit about their policies. They exercise editorial bias in their censorship.

And I really don’t care if they do, but they’re not entitled to do that and have immunity from legal liability.

Dude.....you are KICKING Guisslapp's ass up one side of this board and down the other.... Heck, leave something for the rest of us to beat up! Seriously though, good post.

[glm47]

Maybe not, but you should look up what non sequitur means if you thought your post represented logic.

That’s a joke right?

Anybody that’s been reading Goosey’s, aka Hamilton Berger’s, posts for the last three years knows exactly what non sequitor means.

[HogDawg]

[QUOTE=FriscoDog;1764328]

Why can’t you just admit you were wrong?[/QUOTE

LOL! I was just thinking the very same thing. YOU guys are killing me, I'm laughing so hard....

[HogDawg]

I was wrong that I thought Mueller would find that there is sufficient evidence to show a criminal conspiracy between members of the Trump Campaign and Russia.

I was right that the evidence showed “Collusion”, inasmuch as the reports findings included the following:

- Trump was receptive to Papadopoulos pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

- Russia provided Trump’s campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

- The campaign knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

- Manafort periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

- Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

- Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

- A campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

- Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

- Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

- The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

- The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

- Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

- During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

- During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

I think most folks would call those facts “collusion”. It is definitely unAmerican.

You're a horrible lawyer. LOL!

[glm47]

[QUOTE=Guisslapp;1764331]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...on-of-violence

R[/https://twitter.com/gratefulchild33/status/1266715833214078976

It seems Twitter doesn’t follow their policy.

Hmm, I’ll have to repost when I’m at my computer.

But the tweet says “Hey Chicago, whaddaya say, let’s burn down Trump Tower today.

[HogDawg]

[QUOTE=glm47;1764410]

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...on-of-violence

R[/https://twitter.com/gratefulchild33/status/1266715833214078976

It seems Twitter doesn’t follow their policy.

I've had it with twitter. When they took down that video documentary that included Dr Judy Mikovits criticizing Anthony Fauci and others, well, that was crossing the line. There wasn't a single curse word in the whole video. And yet, twitter took it down, and CENSORED the whole subject. Damn people, this isn't Nazi Germany. We have the right to read complete bullshit if we want. And THIS is why twitter is really a publisher exercising editorial liberties.

[glm47]

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...on-of-violence

You’ll be happy to know that sadly, the WSJ editorial staff agrees with you regarding Twitter.

But to believe that Twitter should police themselves, you have to believe they’re impartial and nonpartisan. And we both know they’re not.

[Guisslapp]

They would be if they told us what we could and could not post or publish. But, save for cuss words, BB&B doesn't do that.

For example, if I want to say Guisslapp is a worthless, low down, communist loving, tree hugging, liberal liar, cheat and thief, I can say that on this site without anyone "editing" my post or sending out a warning to potential readers. In other words, I can say what I want, without fear of suffering repercussions. It's this great little thing called "Freedom of Speech". Look it up.

Twitter does less moderation, and their policies are posted.

[HogDawg]

Twitter does less moderation, and their policies are posted.

Doesn't matter. A corporate policy can easily be out of step with what legally defines a business as a publisher. And in this case, it is. Right now, twitter's business model meets the requirements of a publisher, thus they should be treated as such, and subject to losing their legal protection.

[Guisslapp]

You’ll be happy to know that sadly, the WSJ editorial staff agrees with you regarding Twitter.

But to believe that Twitter should police themselves, you have to believe they’re impartial and nonpartisan. And we both know they’re not.

They should agree with me if they have common sense.

[Guisslapp]

Doesn't matter. A corporate policy can easily be out of step with what legally defines a business as a publisher. And in this case, it is. Right now, twitter's business model meets the requirements of a publisher, thus they should be treated as such, and subject to losing their legal protection.

No they don’t. They are a platform squarely within what section 230 was designed to protect. They are much more a platform than BB&B is.

[glm47]

Twitter does less moderation, and their policies are posted.

And I posted a tweet that proves they don’t adhere to that policy. It’s been almost 24 hours and the tweet is still up. And guess what, rioters trying to attack Trump Tower in Chicago.

[Guisslapp]

And I posted a tweet that proves they don’t adhere to that policy. It’s been almost 24 hours and the tweet is still up. And guess what, rioters trying to attack Trump Tower in Chicago.

That doesn’t matter. The fact that the policy isn’t enforced 100% of the time doesn’t make them not a platform.

[Guisslapp]

And that is the whole point of section 230 - to not put an onerous burden on platforms to police the content of third parties.

The Internet would be far crappier if platforms had to choose between no moderation and perfect moderation. We wouldn’t have any social media or Wikipedia, Internet forums, like BB&B.