• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Twitter labeled Trump tweets with a fact check for the first time

BlueTex said:
As the law is written, who determines whether a party in a lawsuit receives section 230 protection?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the court. I haven't yet researched any particular tests of this statute or precedents. I'd be interested in links if you have any.
 
Jezcoe said:
Quick Question.

If Twitter loses 320 status, would that open them up to libel lawsuits?

For instance, would Joe Scarborough be able to sue Twitter over allowing the President to spread false murder claims against him?

And if so, would it be in Twitter's legal interest to enforce their TOS against the President?
Click to expand...

Trump's Tweets weren't libel. That's not a winnable case.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
As I understand it, the court. I haven't yet researched any particular tests of this statute or precedents. I'd be interested in links if you have any.
Click to expand...

So what exactly does this executive order do?
 
Jezcoe said:
Fallaciously accusing someone of murder isn't libel?
Click to expand...

Sure it is. His Tweets were carefully worded. Scarborough's a public figure. He'd have to prove "actual malice" in a potential suit. It's a high burden. He'd essentially have to prove that not only is he innocent, but that Trump knew of that innocence and willfully ignored it.
 
BlueTex said:
So what exactly does this executive order do?
Click to expand...

OK .. it's new and I'm only just now getting familiar with his order, but it sounds like he's seizing on the "good faith" portion of the law and issuing a re-interpretation from the executive. I agree with that assessment. Twitter is not acting in good faith. Pretty much impossible to prove that, though.

Honestly, the presidency doesn't have the power to compel courts in this way. Seems cosmetic.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
OK .. it's new and I'm only just now getting familiar with his order, but it sounds like he's seizing on the "good faith" portion of the law and issuing a re-interpretation from the executive. I agree with that assessment. Twitter is not acting in good faith. Pretty much impossible to prove that, though.

Honestly, the presidency doesn't have the power to compel courts in this way. Seems cosmetic.
Click to expand...

Exactly... Trump EO porn for the faithful...
 
BlueTex said:
Exactly... Trump EO porn for the faithful...
Click to expand...

A message to his base, sure. Also, getting his objection into the public record. I agree with you that the new EO is a purely political gesture.
 
Pound4abrown said:
And add to that, your internet provider can suspend and even cancel you if you break their code of conduct and terms of service.
Click to expand...
Had some customers in trouble while working at Spectrum who had to contact our security department in order to get their service unlocked because they illegally downloaded copywrited material. Your ISP can quarantine your modem for that sort of thing.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Sure it is. His Tweets were carefully worded. Scarborough's a public figure. He'd have to prove "actual malice" in a potential suit. It's a high burden. He'd essentially have to prove that not only is he innocent, but that Trump knew of that innocence and willfully ignored it.
Click to expand...

I think that both things are possible.

The President is doing this to stir up the pot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom