{"id":36334,"date":"2022-01-23T07:13:48","date_gmt":"2022-01-23T12:13:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=36334"},"modified":"2022-01-23T07:13:48","modified_gmt":"2022-01-23T12:13:48","slug":"once-again-a-new-york-politician-fails-to-understand-the-1st-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=36334","title":{"rendered":"Once Again, a New York politician fails to understand the 1st Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. The state of New York is working overtime to be the second failed state in the Union. Recently, we had an assemblyman put forward a bill to lock up anyone<\/a> with a possible case of the sniffles, and now we have another one who wants to ban free speech.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As you all know, the Totalitarians of Big Tech have been busily censoring anyone who dares post anything that violate their idea of \u201cCommunity Standards.\u201d This includes people who dare question the infallibility of Saint Doctor Anthony Fauci.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Now we have yet another Communazi idiot from the State of New York who has decided that the 1st<\/sup> Amendment doesn\u2019t actually protect free speech, and he wants to lock up anyone who he decides is puts forward what he calls \u201cFalse facts.\u201d Here are the details from the Post Millennial<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

A New York state senator wants to punish social media companies over “harmful content,” and their definition of the phrase extends to any false facts that can be interpreted as endangering public safety. The bill does not provide an understanding as to the basis for making the determination that the information is “false.” <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The basis of the bill is that social media companies would be forbidden from having content promoted that advocates things like use of force or self-harm, but also anything that “includes a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is likely to endanger the safety or health of the public.” <\/b><\/p>\n

Oh good luck with that! There is this little thing called the \u201cTelecommunications Act of 1996\u201d and a section that indemnifies web sites for the garbage people post online. That section, 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230<\/a> protects web sites unless they are acting as publishers. As long as they don\u2019t edit or remove a posting someone else puts up, unless it breaks the law, like sick pictures of children and perverts, they can\u2019t be sanctioned.<\/p>\n

Big Tech has been fighting tooth and nail in the courts to keep this section in place, while also violating it six ways from Sunday. It\u2019s also a current federal law, and as such, renders what you are proposing as moot. (As I understand these things. I\u2019m probably wrong, and no doubt will be corrected)<\/p>\n

Democrat Brad Hoylman first introduced S7568<\/a> last month. But given the language of the bill he\u2019s talking about it once again \u2014 as Capitol riot stories intensify<\/a> leading up to the one year anniversary of January 6, 2021. <\/b><\/p>\n

Wait, the Post Millennial referred to January 6th<\/sup> as a riot, not an insurrection? Didn\u2019t they get the memo?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s framed as an anti-section 230 proposal designed to punish social media companies for the societal impact of their algorithms. His interpretation is that algorithmic elevation of key pieces of online content is a separate action not covered under the Communications Decency Act. <\/b><\/p>\n

“Social media algorithms are specially programmed to spread disinformation and hate speech at the expense of the public good. The prioritization of this type of content has real life costs to public health and safety. So when social media push anti-vaccine falsehoods and help domestic terrorists plan a riot at the U.S. \u00a0Capitol, they must be held accountable. Our new legislation will force social media companies to be held accountable for the dangers they promote.” <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This guy hits all the progressive high points, and shows that he has no clue. Faceplant, Goolag and Twitler already suppress any information that they deem false, even when it isn\u2019t and can be proven that it isn\u2019t. My guess is this chowderhead is actually eyeing the new platforms coming online such as GETTR<\/a>, Parler<\/a>, Gab<\/a>, MeWe<\/a> and the one that President Trump is currently putting together.<\/p>\n

In the exact language<\/a> of S7568 it says that enforcement is possible by the office of the attorney general, on behalf of the people of New York, and the same therein on a local level. In addition, “private rights of action” are permitted by private citizens. <\/b><\/p>\n

I suspect that the New York Attorney General won\u2019t be enforcing this. It would be slapped down the instant it hit the federal courts for any number of reasons. If this bill also allows private citizens to sue, they will lose as well once a case hits the federal courts. (Believe me, many have tried going after the Fascist totalitarians of Big Tech)<\/p>\n

The bill comes amid a wave of other big tech political backlash<\/a> sparked by Twitter\u2019s permanent suspension<\/a> of Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. <\/b><\/p>\n

Those idiots don\u2019t actually help themselves much, do they? Of course, the reason they banned Representative Taylor Green is due to their claims she was posting misinformation. (Which she wasn\u2019t) Representative Marjorie Taylor Green was banned for the simple reason that she won\u2019t kowtow to the Progressive totalitarian left.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

She and others on both sides of the political aisle are looking at pulling the Section 230 protections from Twitler, Goolag and Faceplant. The trick is not harming companies that don\u2019t censor posts for political content, only real illegal content. (Such as kiddie porn)<\/p>\n

What this moron in New York is trying to do, if it actually passes and becomes law, is shut down anyone who disagrees with what is currently \u201cRightThink.\u201d I doubt it will pass and will almost certainly be thrown out as unconstitutional. Now if we could only ban idiots like this one from holding office\u2026.<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (3<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n