The Issue with Big-Tech's Partisan Censorship is Not the 1st Amendment: The issue is CDA section 230 (and Rampant Defamation by Big Tech Publishers)
- By: Dr. Floyd
- Summary: none yet, summary suggestions welcomed and appreciated
- Tags: none yet, tag suggestions welcomed and appreciated
Video Title: Elon Musk Goes SCORCHED EARTH - Biden/Twitter Corruption EXPOSED | Trump Was Right!
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wYJLnrFWuQ
Analysis:
Big tech colluded with democrat rats to politically benefit from hiding, through meticulous censorship, the corruption and crimes of key democrats. The purpose of this meticulous censorship by big tech was to deceive democrat voters into trusting, and electing, the democrat rats—especially by gaslighting and defaming conservatives and other rightists, as well as classically liberal leftist. Many now demand that such censorship was illegal and unconstitutional under the first amendment; but that amendment applies only to governmental conduct. The DNC is not governmental, nor was any "Biden team" governmental before assuming office. So none of this implicates the first amendment, which, again, applies only to conduct by the government.
Instead of the first amendment, one key proper legal and political angel is to remove the copyright-infringement immunity enjoyed by Twitter (and the rest) under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). That section 230 protection exists only for neutral platforms—immunizing such neutral platforms from copyright infringement laws that apply to publishers but not platforms. Meanwhile, these leftist mind-sewers are not neutral platforms: they are partisan publishers. So the section 230 protections do not apply to them, as a matter of law, based on the congressional intent of CDA section 230. That has been the proper legal issue for many years now. Ted Cruz and others put this point well enough back in 2020 and even before that.
Twitter, Google, Meta (which includes Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp), and the rest: these leftist mind-sewers are politically partisan publishers, not neutral platforms. Thus, as a matter of legislative intent, section 230 protection against civil liability for copyright infringement: these protections do not apply to the leftist big tech mind-sewers. Copyright holders should be suing these leftist mind-sewers for the rampant copyright infringement that these leftist mind-sewers publish to make their billions. However, such copyright holders will not sue the leftist mind-sewers to any important extent—until there is a clear legal precedent, in the courts, that such suits will not be simply a waste of time and money: that the courts will not be dismissing the cases, in favor of the leftist mind-sewers, based on section 230 protection.
Moreover, another legal avenue arising from these big-tech lies and censorship is that plenty of the lies and censorship strategically subjected many individuals to legally actionable defamation. Thus, many individuals have standing to sue some or all of the slithering leftist serpents in the big-tech mind-sewer.
–Dr. Floyd