Reason Roundup

Trump's Illegal, Impossible Plan to Teach Twitter a Lesson

Plus: unrest in Minneapolis, Twitter labels Trump tweet, and more...


Trump's tantrum over Twitter "censorship" might play well with his base, but they're the only ones who don't seem to know that it's a joke. Even members of his own administration have been refusing to back the president's new executive order about social media.

Yahoo News reports that "Vice President Mike Pence, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow and others are making the argument that it will set a bad precedent to signal that the federal government can go after private companies and seek to penalize them for purely political reasons."

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) head Ajit Pai said in a statement: "The Federal Communications Commission will carefully review any petition for rulemaking filed by the Department of Commerce." Subtext: The agency doesn't take action at Trump's solo command.

Trump's order—a final draft of which was released yesterday—asks the FCC to "propose regulations clarifying" some thoughts he has about how Twitter, Facebook, and the federal law known as Section 230 should work.

Allahpundit sums it up nicely at Hot Air:

[T]his is a glimpse at an ugly authoritarian soul fantasizing openly about using government power to censor a critic. Not even a critic, as Twitter's let him run wild on their platform for a decade. All they did to piss him off was append a note to two of his tweets that slightly complicated his scheme to scapegoat voting-by-mail for his possible defeat in November. Two days later we have the president ranting in the Oval Office next to the Attorney General about closing down a prominent media company that's used by millions to communicate.

"Just to be clear," National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke reminds us, "the president can't take away statutory legal protections, and we shouldn't indulge the idea that he can. His job is to uphold the law, not negate it."

Some in the Trump camp have rallied around the president's position. Attorney General Bill Barr called it a "first step." And the ever-preening-for-Trump's-attention trio of Sens. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), Marco Rubio (R–Fla.), and Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) keep lying about the legal issues involved.

When called out—for instance, by Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.)—on their misrepresentations of the law, they revert to sputtering about free speech and Big Tech without addressing the ways they're clearly making things up about what is a very short statute:

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

Worse still: A lot of powerful Democrats want the same thing their Trumpian counterparts do. They use different reasons to justify taking control of online speech and the entities that facilitate it, and they generally plan to do different things with that power. But for years, top Democrats—former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.)—have pushed the same sorts of anti–Section 230 propaganda and called for similar, sometimes identical, limitations to its scope.

Section 230 doesn't create any rights for "interactive computer services" (or their users) that they're not guaranteed under the First Amendment. But it clarifies legal liability for internet-mediated speech in such a way that digital actors big and small can avoid getting bogged down in endless frivolous lawsuits or baseless criminal charges from an attention-seeking district attorney. Without it, internet companies would have to spend an untenable amount of time in court fighting for their fundamental First Amendment rights—and would be much more susceptible to politically motivated attacks.

How might they counter such tedious legal actions without the protection of Section 230? One approach would be to permit all sorts of speech unless legally ordered to take an individual message down, turning large platforms into cesspools. Another, more likely approach would be to suppress any posts or users that anyone complains about, without first asking questions or making individual determinations, as sites tend to do with takedown requests alleging copyright violations. Anyone reported would have their account limited until they could prove that they were innocent of the offense alleged, severely worsening the social-media problems that people currently complain about.

Without Section 230, officials could much more easily police what people say about them online, suppress critics, crush rival campaigns, and weaponize platforms like Twitter and Facebook for their own ends. The ultimate aim here is not to stop bias against conservatives, to block Russian bots, to protect the sanctity of elections, to shield women from airdropped dick pics, to stop the spread of fake news, to save kids from getting gun downed in schools by fentanyl-peddling human traffickers from ISIS, or whatever new bullshit excuse gets used this week to manufacture consent for giving them the power to control our online speech.

Trump—who said in a televised address last night that he would shut Twitter down if he could—is just saying the quiet parts a little louder than the rest.


Twitter is, apparently, not backing down.

Early this morning, Trump tweeted that he was willing to send the military to Minneapolis—where protests against police brutality and the murder of George Floyd have also led to looting and fires—and that the troops wouldn't hesitate to open fire. "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts," he posted at 12:53 a.m.

Atop Trump's tweet, Twitter posted a message saying "this Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public's interest for the Tweet to remain accessible," with a link to learn more. When scrolling through Trump's timeline, users must click view to see the actual tweet.

Folks will again try to spin this as Twitter illegally or unfairly "censoring" Trump. But as Hot Air reminds us:

Twitter isn't the state actor here. Trump is. It's not Trump's free speech that's being threatened. Twitter's is, by Trump. Social media companies can't "censor" because they're not public forums, a point that was reiterated literally just yesterday by the D.C. Circuit. [The opening passage of the executive order] is Trump's twisted victimhood complex distilled to its essence, a case of the president bringing the power of the federal government onto a private actor because of how powerless he's been made to feel.

As I wrote yesterday, Trump's new executive order throws around a lot of legal terms and dramatic statements but doesn't amount to much of anything. The order basically just talks about what Trump thinks Section 230 means and asks federal agencies to consider sanctioning these companies if they're doing something illegal (and if so, maybe could they tell him what that is?).

The FCC and the Federal Trade Commission have previously signaled that they want no part in all of this.

"Based on the track record of Ajit Pai, he has been lobbied to police speech many times, and he has not succumbed to any of those pressures," said Ashkhen Kazaryan, director of civil liberties at TechFreedom. "This is not how the Constitution works. The First Amendment protects Twitter from Trump. It does not protect Trump from Twitter."

"Legal and technology policy experts [said] that some sections of the draft executive order were not legal at all and that other parts would require government agencies to throw out years of judicial interpretation of Section 230," notes Business Insider.


• Updates from Minneapolis:

• Protests over Floyd's killing have also extended beyond the area:

• Virginia Postrel on how banning Chinese STEM students would backfire.

• The CDC has new guidelines on office life.

• Some good news:

• Today in Our Dystopian Future:

NEXT: California's COVID-19 Shutdown Was Driven by Science. Until It Suddenly Wasn't.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Twitter wants to be The Nation, give them the same legal liabilities as The Nation.

    1. So what is stopping some right leaning person, or persons, from launching a social media platform that El Presidente can utilize to rile his opponents?

      1. At which point you say that hosting organizations, ISPs, etc are all private entities and are free to not allow you to get to said social media platform should it become popular enough to be a risk to the hive mind.

        1. Well there is that…

          1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month .cxs . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

            Heres what I do……………… See More here

        2. It’s almost as if you need to convince people to work with you instead of forcing them to at the barrel of a gun.

          1. You’re right, fuck those darkies, let them eat slop, they need to get people to let them eat inside

            1. And there it is. The ultra snowflake permanent professional victim conservative.

              “Wah!!!! Not liking me for my abhorrent opinions is the same as racism! I demand to speak to twitter’s manager!”

              1. So is Twitter a publisher or a public utility, DOL?
                It’s time to choose.

                1. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Last month my pay check of nearly 30 k$.This online work is like draw straight-arrow and earn money. Do not go to office.QRe I do not claim to be others,I just work. You will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this WEBSITE.

                  I hope,you can find something………..► ScolloconGress

      2. This is true, and it makes Trump look stupid to go after Twitter. He could probably hurt Twitter more by moving to Gab (?) and leaving Twitter to become Daily Kos.

          1. Don’t be silly, they’d probably need search and mail services too. And hosting and fiber services to be 100% competitive.

          2. Not needed, I just downloaded it on mine to check. Yes, I couldn’t download direct from Google play but it wasn’t hard to do from my browser.

            1. That it can be sideloaded isn’t the point though.

              1. Actually, that it requires side loading IS the point.

                App equivalent of a shadowbanning.

                1. Wasn’t Microsoft smacked with antitrust suits over less than this?

              2. Jessie said that they needed to create their own operating system. Which they don’t need to do.

                1. Again, hyperbole seems to not exist in anyones world. I used a hyperbolic example.

                  Now explain away the denial of various services to groups like these mentioned in other posts.

                  You seem to be okay with negative market actions. Is this true or not. As long as someone is not cut out 100%, you’re fine with up to the 99.99%

            2. those poor Apple customers. Suckers!

            3. Oh, so you had to do something special in order to get access to a competiter’s service. Why was Gab removed from Play? did you even investigate? Do you know what an anti free market action is?

          3. Are you saying that the only way to get apps is through Google Play? Or are you saying that Google Play should be forced to host every app download?

            Can’t gab offer the download at their website?

        1. By the way… do we do this with other markets? If the bank wants to discriminate against a subset of people, just have those people form their own bank.

          Why is this true of only internet arguments?

          1. Two words: Operation Chokepoint

          2. Religions do it and from my limited use of social media; I think that is a more apt comparison.

            1. “Religions do it…”

              Wow. That’s impressive.

              1. Again Jessie ask for another market that discriminates and religions do this, you must believe certain things to be part of the religion. They also break up and create new branches when they’re philosophical views diverge to such extent that they find it necessary. Life goes on.

                1. Are you in a race for most disingenuous arguments?

          3. If low credit score people want to start their own bank out of protest, they could. No one forces the bank to work with people or businesses they consider high risk or bad customers. And before you try to equate being a bad customer with protected class, I just ask that you don’t embarrass yourself too much today.

            1. You should take your own advice.

            2. “And before you try to equate being a bad customer”

              Where did he say “bad customer” stupid fuck?


              “If the bank wants to discriminate against a subset of people”

              THAT is what he said lolol and now you look even dumber lololol

              1. Well, it is Jeff…

            3. You being wrong about everything doesn’t embarrass me sweetie.

          4. It’s not. Banks discriminate regularly. Restaurants are allowed to impose a dress code legally, and no one calls it discrimination.

            The only time discrimination is illegal is against certain specific “protected classes”. Race etc. I believe there are some 7 protected classes. Against everyone else, discrimination is perfectly normal, and is in fact a selling point for many businesses.

            1. According to my mandatory NYC diversity training, white male is also a protected class.

              1. Yeah, I wanna see the class notes on THAT.

          5. By the way… do we do this with other markets? If the bank wants to discriminate against a subset of people, just have those people form their own bank.

            What’s wrong with this exactly? As a libertarian who strongly supports the concept of free association, i see nothing wrong with discrimination of any kind by private entities, individual or corporate.

            1. Jesse is an actual fascist who hangs out here for some reason, not a libertarian.

              1. And he goes full retard once again. Thanks jeff.

          6. How do you think Bank of America was founded? Hint: It’s original name was actually Bank of China, and it had no connection with China the country.

            Also don’t forget the merchant banks that sprung up to offer credit card processing to gun dealers when Chokepoint targeted them. Most of them are still around, and making good money off loyal gun dealers.

        2. The author, and you, I believe miss the point Trump is making. Twitter may well, I am not an attorney, be covered under the statute as represented by the author. Trump’s point, however, is still valid; Twitter is now the Decider of truth for every tweet. If not flagged, truth. If flagged, lie. Sorry but that ca not stand. By doing what he did Trump has brought public awareness to the issue. I have no insight on if the Executive Order will fail, it is almost immaterial. What is material is the issue will not go away, something will be done about it. That something will not make Twitter happy. As a strong libertarian I fear I will not be happy either. Twitter will be to blame for the bad outcome. All they had to do was stay being solely the platform, they decided to become the Decider of truth.

          1. Agreed. What is truly lost here is that the EO is mostly done to publicize the issue more than be legally valid. That is why the EO didn’t touch on most of the enforceable parts of Section 230. It was more to generate media outrage to highlight the issue. ENB is just being a good soldier.

          2. Except that the leviathan has been breathing down Twitter’s (and all of big social media’s) neck for almost a decade to crack down on fake news, terrorist content, anything that makes the pee pee into the big pee pee, and of course to enforce political “””fairness”””.

            Trump’s thrust is transparently anger at HIS message being caught up in the same rigmarole that he and his have been pushing for years. The leviathan has been hoist by its own petard.

            If someone wants to actually argue that the narcissist-in-chief, primary prevaricator, and phlegmatic famous-for-being-a-celebrity president who seems to libel people almost as often as he threatens to sue people for libel is actually a deep intellectual who cares deeply about the constitutional principle of freedom of speech excuse me while I die of laughter.

            1. “Trump’s thrust is transparently anger at HIS message being caught up in the same rigmarole that he and his have been pushing for years.”

              Show us one quote of Trump saying that social media organizations should censor “fake news” or otherwise arbitrate veracity.

              This is what happens when you idiotically take “bOtH sIdEs” as a tenet of faith

          3. If we’re going by perceptions and points being made, that doesn’t help Trump either. He certainly could make his point in other ways without appearing like he’s writing stupid EO.

            Twitter, is not the Decider of Truth anymore than newspapers or TV news. People have figured out who or what to believe on their own. Because Twitter labels something truth, or not, doesn’t mean people are going to believe it. You don’t, right? Twitter makes stupid claims, and people believe those, or they don’t. It’s no different than newspapers or TV news pretending to just be reporting.

      3. If you look at the President’s flagged tweets, a company called keeps inviting him to switch to their site. According to some sources, is right leaning. Trump apparently has no interest.

        1. If trump switched to then how would he torment the media. there is a reason to stay on Twitter

          1. That’s pretty much it. Twitter is dominated by left-wing users, and every time Trump tweets out something, it gets bullhorned by the very media that hate his guts.

            If he went to gab, no one would give a shit; it would just be one less user, albeit with more of a virtual bully pulpit. Trump stays on Twitter precisely because it’s the primary communication channel of every media personality in the country.

            1. He should stay on Twitter, but mirror everything on Gab. That way all of Twitter’s interference and editorial actions will be even more apparent.

          2. Possibly, but let’s say Trump moved to Do you think the journalists and many, many other people would follow him? Or do you think they would just give up and let him “tweet” by himself over there?

            It seems to me that they would follow him to try to torment him.

            1. They would follow him because he is the President of the United States. When he says stuff, it is newsworthy.

              1. Exactly. So nobody should be saying that he needs to stay on Twitter to reach people or journalists. They WANT to reach him. He can torment them from whatever platform he chooses. And they will attempt to torment him.

                1. Trumps is not being tormented. He is doing the tormenting.

            2. Then could censor THEM, and find out how they feel about it.

        2. Owning the libtards is best done in libtard land.

          1. Maybe, but imagine the power he would feel if all the libtards had to register for an account at gab and he owned them there.

        3. Gab has already been removed from various support services by the collusion in silicon valley.

          When you hand waive that then you slowly go down the rabbit hole until the solution is two separate internets.

          There is massive collusion in silicon valley. Not sure why this is never addressed. They are literal anti free market actions.

          1. JesseSPAZ’s “solution” to JesseSPAZ’s “expert” opinion that silicon valley is “colluding”:

            Appoint Der TrumpfenFuhrer to be the Minister of Truth!

            And JesseSPAZ can NOT comprehend, when Der TrumpfenFuhrer acquires new powers… The Trumptatorshit NOT being able to live forever… JesseSPAZ’s political enemies will eventually inherit these new powers! This FACT is entirely TOO complicated to register on JesseSPAZ’s hyper-partisan so-called “brain”!

            1. I’m sorry Jesse owned you so much that you can’t avoid having a tantrum


              God damn guy no one cares about your diet

              1. I would dearly LOVE to get OUT of under the Trumptatorshit that all you boot-lickers seem to adore! That is TOTALLY clear from what I write, except for willfully thick-headed morons!

                I noticed you morons NEVER refute what I actually SAY, because you can NOT do so! All that morons do, is insult people! What a surprise!

                1. “Trumptatorshit”

                  You cannot stop talking about your food lolololol

                2. SQRLSY One has now conquered 3 out of the 7 neurons in Tulpa’s head, such that Tulpa names itself after SQRLSY One! The other 4 neurons (a VERY generous estimate, most likely) are STILL, as usual, devoted to conspiring to drown ALL intelligent discussions on, with Tulpa’s yeast-infected twat secretions oozing all over everything!

                  1. It’s not Tulpa. It’s a troll who stole Tulpa’s name and started calling itself Tulpa to get back at Tulpa. Every time you call it Tulpa, you play its game. This isn’t a secret. It’s been well known for years. If you weren’t insane you’d have learned it by now.

                    And no, insane person, it isn’t Mary Stack either, she had a competely different style very reminiscent of yours.




                4. “I noticed you morons NEVER refute what I actually SAY”

                  Who wishes to expend the energy to actually raise the crap you post to the level of an argument.

                  1. Excellent excuse, intellectually defenseless one! I, too, could conquer the Galaxy… I just don’t FEEL like it today!

        4. Maybe he will after November.

      4. You are aware that these companies participate in anti competitive actions like buy and kills and such right? And as mentioned they have been documented to pressure ISPs, DDOS protection services, funding sources, payment processors, etc to also make a competitors development difficult.

        This always seems to be ignored for some reason.

        1. We should have an Anti Dog Eat Dog Rule.

          1. Those examples listed are literal examples of anti-market actions that most libertarians would be against.

      5. So what is stopping some right leaning person, or persons, from launching a social media platform that El Presidente can utilize to rile his opponents

        FaceTwitGoogleYou and Paypal.

      6. Maybe a few million dollars in hedge fund/bank/the Fed investment? Here is the the funding tech world you need to have a sugar daddy and the path goes through certain firms which are part of the corrupt Fed system…hedge funds have an unfair advantage because of link between them/investment bank/ and the Fed…easy credit as much as you need as long as you have the appropriate political view. and worse these hedge funds buddies from Harvard or Yale who majored in gender studies or some bolshevik major are given content management jobs at these places…which is why they folks all seem to have the same background…you don’ find too many Irish or Italian Conservatives or libertarians from Penn State managing content at these places. Let anyone get free Fed money to start one of these…

    2. Twitter, by putting a “fact check” on Trump’s tweet about mail in ballots, has vouched for the truthfulness and accuracy of every tweet not fact checked.

      Twitter, by removing verification from people for saying the ‘wrong’ things, has endorsed the tweets of everyone who gets to keep their verification.

      1. Twitter, by putting a “fact check” on Trump’s tweet about mail in ballots, has vouched for the truthfulness and accuracy of every tweet not fact checked.

        You may wish this were true, but absolutely no one thinks it is.

        1. what the fuck does what people think have to do with truth?

        2. Twitter, by putting a “fact check” on Trump’s tweet about mail in ballots, has vouched for the truthfulness and accuracy of every tweet not fact checked.

          You may wish this were true, but absolutely no one thinks it is.

          You may wish this were true, but absolutely no one thinks it is.

      2. Wanna be dicks and ‘fact check’ the fricken President of the United States? Fine. But you don’t get to pretend you’re not a fricken publisher. They’re being passive aggressive little bitches because the owners of these social media sites are cucks and passive-aggressive little bitches.

        Twitter IS indirectly censoring and playing loose with free speech.

        I highly doubt their illiberal and illiterate ‘fact checkers’ are ‘fact checking’ far left organizations.

        1. The fact that Twitter was fact checked on their fact check and had to update their first fact check was hilarious.

          1. Such that the whole situation wound up make Twitter look way dumber than Trump.

            1. But only to people who get their news from other than MSM sources, because the MSM decided the correction to the correction wasn’t news.

        2. Yeah cause nothing says :manly man” like throwing a bitch fit cause your adolescent Tweetstorm hits a slight speedbump.

          Are you one of those fat old wannabe soldier tactical vest wearing weekend militia bros that thinks Trump is a “tough guy?”

    3. Hello.

      Twitter picked this fight.

      I read the article at Volokh. I get what Trump is doing.

      Social media has cowardly but cleverly been playing both sides of the publisher/platform divide.

      Call their damn bluff already.

      1. The issue that everyone’s ignoring here, or just forgot, is that Twitter has been acting as a content manager for a while.

        The week after the 2016 election, they mass-deleted a bunch of “alt-right” accounts under the rubric of “hate speech.” What really happened is that Twitter was afraid that these accounts had led to Trump being elected due to their influence levels, particularly the “Ricky Vaughn” account that was run by a white nationalist and supposedly had a broader reach than Drudge and mainstream media platforms.

        Like I said yesterday, Twitter crossed this Rubicon a long time ago; adding “fact checks” on the President’s account just confirms that they’re acting more as a publishing site now than a communications platform, and it’s growing the giant-ass bullseye that got put on their backs after the 2016 election. They can’t outright delete his account because of the total shitstorm it would cause, not because they wouldn’t if they thought they could do so without causing too much fallout.

        1. Just goes to show how fucken stupid Dorsey is.

          He picked a fight with the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

          1. A guy who loves a good fight.

            1. Provided he can punch down with a cohort of sycophants cheering him, sure, he loves a good fight.

              1. How would a President punch up?

                1. True, but you know damn well what I mean. He certainly would not fare well in a fair one on one fight where his power was not available to him.

                  1. That’s pretty much true of any politician. Which just underscores the original comment that you don’t pick a fight with the President of the US, regardless of who is the President of the US.

          2. So basically what you’re implying is that the office should make one immune to criticism? How very American of you.

    4. Trump’s twitter tweet twists talkinghead titties.


    Remarks by the Vice President at Sichuan University


    FOLLOWED BY Q & A WITH STUDENTS Sichuan University

    Chengdu, China

    I’m also proud that more than 160 Fortune 500 companies are operating in Chengdu High-tech Zone, including pioneer American businesses like Intel, Dell and Oracle. The U.S.-China relationship has also improved dramatically in the past 30 years. In order to cement this robust partnership, we have to go beyond close ties between Washington and Beijing, which we’re working on every day, go beyond it to include all levels of government, go beyond it to include classrooms and laboratories, athletic fields and boardrooms.

    1. U.S. to Expel Chinese Graduate Students With Ties to China’s Military Schools
      The move is the latest in the Trump administration’s efforts to impose limits on Chinese students. But university officials say the government is paranoid, and that the United States will lose out.

      American universities are expected to push back against the administration’s move. While international educational exchange is prized for its intellectual value, many schools also rely on full tuition payments from foreign students to help cover costs, especially the large group of students from China.

      Before posting the bit about the “liberalizing effects” of an American university, I need to say something:


      Many of them argue that they have effective security protocols in place, and that having Chinese students be exposed to the liberalizing effects of Western institutions outweighs the risks.

      1. House Democrats silent as GOP probes China’s infiltration of U.S. universities

  3. Trump Borrowing $3 Trillion For The June Quarter Will Exceed Obama’s Last 5 Years

    Pathetic. He calls himself the “King of Debt” and that is probably the only time he has told the truth.

    You Trump Trash should be ashamed.

    1. #VoteBidenForFiscalResponsibility

      1. That may be your best snark ever!

    2. If you knew what shame was, you wouldn’t be here any more.

      1. He calls himself a buttplug

        1. It’s his best attribute.

    3. While disappointed at Trump’s lackluster response to the Great Depression 2 he’s caused, I’m somewhat hopeful for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat proposal for another $3 trillion in stimulus spending.

      Once Biden wins the presidency and Democrats take control of the senate, we can finally get to rebuilding our nation at home.

      1. This one cinched it for me. You’re definitely giving OBL a run for his money.

      2. If govt was such a great investment why do deficits go up..after all we are spending a ton of money….errr…its not. Keynes was a moron and a pedo as well.

    4. Still no understanding of how the budget process works. This is actually very astounding.

  4. Trump’s tantrum over Twitter “censorship” might play well with his base, but they’re the only ones who don’t seem to know that it’s a joke.

    He can shoot Twitter in Times Square…

  5. And, right next door on Volokh, you can get an actual analysis of the order rather than ENB’s incoherent ranting:

    There is one, very easy way for social media companies to continue to retain the advantages of liability protection. How? By not moderating, altering, or manipulating third-party content. This is literally the easiest solution. Twitter doesn’t have to do anything.

    1. Actually the simple solution is to use a different product if you don’t like it. I’ve never used Twitter once in my life. It’s not hard.

      1. Okay. Use a different product.

        What does that have to do with the propriety of Twitter being afforded a government right to avoid traditional common law liability?

        Oh … nothing.

      2. Are you a social media company?

        Guzba was clearly giving advice to a social media company and you responded with your personal boring anecdote.

        1. No, he was encouraging bad policy about a subject he doesn’t understand. Guzba thinks your ISP stores “The Internet” on servers and you download it from them. I don’t think any tech company cares for his advice.

          1. You are miles off the subject. Luckily your comment is software and has no existence in reality, much like your analysis.

          2. aww you’re upset because you know you’re wrong and now lying too

          3. //No, he was encouraging bad policy//

            Do you understand what the word “encouraging” means? And, plenty of people think it is good policy. Or, just policy – without any particular opinion about it.

            If you’re going to troll like a salty little girl, at least make it interesting to read.

            1. He’s super pissy about getting owned yesterday.

            2. Let’s savor this gem some more:

              “Geraje Guzba
              May.28.2020 at 9:30 pm

              Oh. my. GOD.

              Verizon offers software!


              And here I thought, like the rube that I am, that they are were selling me access to their physical lines … so I can walk over, and stare at them.”

              1. You trolled the entire comment board yesterday with notions of mystery physics and a magical ether that houses the internet.

                Do you really want to play that game again? How much embarrassment can you handle?

              2. lol you linked to phone software for cell networks because you didn’t know the difference between that and a physical network connection in your house.

              3. “You trolled the entire comment board yesterday with notions of mystery physics and a magical ether that houses the internet”

                And you’re still triggered by the textbook definition of software. You need to let that one go.

                1. AHAHAHAHA you made a fool of yourself and now you can’t stop having a tantrum we fucking broke you ahahahahahaaha

                2. No, you embarrassed yourself yesterday.

              4. I guess infinite embarrassment is the answer.

                1. Careful, he’s a guy on the internet arguing from authority because he claims to be a software engineer!

                  And he is SUPER BUTTHURT so be careful or he’ll lie about what you said some more!!!

                  1. How can one be a software engineer when software doesn’t even really exist?

              5. I’m a good multitasker. Go ahead and share more of your hypotheses about how the internet works, they are hilarious.

                1. The entire board spent the day laughing at you

                2. My original comment today was about a legal issue. You interjected with irrelevant nonsense that had nothing to do with the law or my comment.

                  If you want to continue trolling with nonsense, go back to yesterday’s article, and keep posting there.

                  1. But then how would he soothe the beating his fragile ego took?

                3. If you didn’t try so hard to pretend to be knowledgeable about subjects that you clearly aren’t knowledgeable about, people would troll you less. But you are right, this one has run its course.

                  1. Bro it ran it’s course yesterday when you got owned

                  2. My original comment today was about a legal issue. You interjected with irrelevant nonsense that had nothing to do with the law or my comment.

                    If you want to continue trolling with nonsense, go back to yesterday’s article, and keep posting there.

                  3. I have never seen someone be so wrong yet double down so much as you are on this argument. Yes, I’m a Computer Engineer who has 15 years experience with multiple papers published. You were wrong yesterday. Just admit you failed.

                    1. Nice appeal to authority with no argument to back it up. Software is information, bitch. Why does that make you so mad?

                    2. Oh wow you are upset, stop digging guy.

                    3. Did you just accuse me of an appeal to authority when you backed your entire argument yesterday based on you being a software engineer?

                    4. I said the internet is a hardware agnostic software stack and it sent that Sanjay Gupta guy off the deep end. He made about 20 posts in 20 minutes about the Internet being magic and shit. I still have no idea what he was talking about.

                      The actual argument was about you and him posting the same false statements about section 230 based based on content neutrality in every article. Our professions have nothing to do with that.

                    5. Oh and he kept saying twitter and an ISP are basically the same thing, which let to the whole Internet discussion shit show.

      3. I’ve never used Twitter once in my life. It’s not hard.

        So then how did you hear about the President’s post on Twitter?

        1. He’s the POTUS. He can’t fart without the entire world reporting on it. No President of the United States will EVER have a problem communicating.

          1. Ah so it’s one of your socks

        2. Because twitter is the universe to a lot of journalists and they love writing stories about what people tweet.

          1. So you didn’t read the Tweet directly? How do you know it came from Twitter? Or Trump?

            You used Twitter, you just aren’t a subscribing member. It’s a *bit* like any one of us saying we’ve never used Reason. Sure, plenty of us aren’t paid subscribers or contributors, but whether we cited their sources, followed their sources, read their articles and commented, didn’t read the articles and commented… we’ve used Reason.

            1. I don’t, I have embedded tweets blocked.

      4. Have we settled on the fact that the Internet uses Hardware yet? Or is it still some mythical software (which you even stated could simply be written on software and it works)?

        1. written on paper*

        2. LMAO

        3. This has to be the dumbest strawman you’ve come up with yet

          1. This was all you, dumbass:

            May.28.2020 at 11:59 am

            I can create software with a pencil and piece of paper. By the way, you have taken us down this pedantic rabbit hole, not me.

            1. An objectively true statement. If you think that means “the internet is magic and runs without hardware” you are just dumb as fuck.

              1. //An objectively true statement.//

                Did you hear the one about the software they found in King Tutankhamun’s tomb?

    2. Stewart Baker has an interesting piece as well. Professor Volokh has been on a tear with this, his posts are very informative.

      1. It is refreshing to read informed, legal perspectives on the issue rather than screeching rants from …. what is it that ENB did before writing for Reason?

        1. It’s not What she did but Who she did.

    3. I love how the president is such a brazen liar and conman that previously neutral organizations are stretched to their breaking points, and you guys are upset about that instead of the brazen lying and conning.

      1. I love how much you cry and use obvious sockpuppets

        1. Xer cries so much. It’s really all it does anymore.

          1. I’m fact, I might have to change its name from Lying Jeffy to Crying Jeffy!

      2. //[P]reviously neutral organizations//

        So, you are conceding the point that Twitter is not being neutral?

        1. Quora is neutral too.

          Neutral Mikey told us so.

    4. Bro. Does Twitter control your access to the Internet at large? No? Then they are not a public utility. They’re simply one of millions of apps from which, if you choose, you can spout your ramblings on to the Net. STFU with this whine-disguised-as-legal-argument. So tiresome.

  6. …Vice President Mike Pence, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow and others are making the argument that it will set a bad precedent to signal that the federal government can go after private companies and seek to penalize them for purely political reasons.

    Well, the only other reasons to do anything in Washington is for money or power, and those two things are kind of tied together with political gain.

    1. “…set a bad precedent to signal that the federal government can go after private companies and seek to penalize them for purely political reasons.”

      Wasn’t that precedent already set by the IRS a few years ago?

      1. Remember when Joe Lieberman “made inquiries” to Amazon, Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard about Wikileaks and every one of them simultaneously refused to do business with Wikileaks almost immediately afterwards?

        Neither do I.

    2. Beside money and power, there is sex. But, yeah, Pence is not indulging in that scene.

    3. Pence had better watch out or he won’t be on the ticket in November. Frankly, I give it only a week or too before Kudlow and Pai get booted too. This is a very petty man.

      1. Maybe, but you’re projecting is through the roof

      2. Does that mean Hillary becomes President?

  7. The Coronavirus Is Also Spreading a Dark New Era of Neo-Feudalism
    The COVID-19 pandemic is accelerating the global shift already underway towards a neo-feudal society. With the middle-class economy largely shut down and, in the best-case scenario, in for a long and painful recovery, the population that is barely hanging on is expanding rapidly in America and around the world. In the U.S. alone, the ranks of the poor are projected to increase by as much as 50 percent, to levels not seen in at least a half century.

    Neo-feudalism is reprising the kind of society that existed in Medieval times, characterized by declining social mobility and greater concentrations of power. In the neo-Feudal world, as in the original, the middle class loses its primacy, as small businesses fail and even affluent families face the prospect of joining the ranks of ever expanding class of property-less serfs.

    …Despite their belief in “science”, the Clerisy holds to its dogma despite decades of exaggerated predictions of impending environmental doom, including claims made in the 1970s that natural resources, including energy and food, would run out, leading to mass starvation. Now the same sense of omniscience is sometimes extended to the pandemic, despite dubious, often inaccurate projections about the extent and severity of the outbreak.

    Rather than a catastrophe ruining lives, some modern day clerics see the pandemic and the lockdowns as a “test run” for their dreams of achieving “degrowth” by essentially wiping out much of current discretionary spending. Psychology Today suggests the lockdown can help cure “the human beast”, a phraseology not too distinct from early Christian assessments of humanity’s capacity for sin. This view, best labelled as “eco-medievalist,” sees the pandemic as just another smackdown by an increasingly distressed Mother Nature. This sense of righteous certitude, no doubt, has been amplified by the blithering Donald Trump and some of his supporters who doggedly assert that anything, including a very real pandemic, threatening to his presidency must be a “hoax.”

    That in turn has led to furious claims in places like the Atlantic, the Lorraine Jobs-backed house publication of the clerisy, about how opening up the economy amount to “human sacrifice,” and about how in the “debate over freedom or control” China “was largely correct and the US was wrong. “

  8. A new Fairness Doctrine. Emboldening trial lawyers. Massive new regulations. Government restricted speech. Governing by Executive Order. This is like 5 for 5 on things conservatives would’ve freaked out about under Obama.

    Conservatism is a lie only stupid people believe.

    1. So … what are the massive new regulations?

    2. And they’re all things you’ll immediately stop giving a shit about when Biden wins because you are absolutely as unprincipled as you accuse the Trumpistas of being. You’re merely the other side of the coin.

      1. Bullshit. I am not on the other side.

        I am for gridlock. A government that can’t do shit because both parties only want to grow government.

        1. “Bullshit. I am not on the other side.”

          Don’t be ashamed of your unmistakable Democratic affiliation, Mr. Buttplug. You root for Democrats almost as aggressively as Tony and I do.

          1. It’s true that I have conservatives more than I hate progressives but only because the latter does not lie about supporting limited government then turn around and expand it when in power.

            Since Democrats are pussies who won’t stand up to the GOP the only real gridlock is with a GOP House and Dem POTUS, That is our most effective form of government.

            1. “It’s true that I have conservatives more than I hate progressives but only because the latter does not lie about supporting limited government then turn around and expand it when in power.”

              So you’re cool with the vast panoply of things they DO lie about, got it.

        2. The thing is, your posting ratio proves you’re lying.

          1. You don’t know shit.

            1. The thing is, your posting ratio proves you’re lying.

        3. You have several years of posts multiple times a day saying otherwise. That’s fine and it’s your right to whatever opinions you want, but at least be honest with yourself. This place needs people to create some pushback and it can be very entertaining sometimes.

          BTW, if you think “gridlock” actually stops a single horrible thing the government does, you really haven’t been paying attention.

        4. You claimed Obama and Jimmy Carter were libertarians…

    3. I like how asking for equal treatment is some onerous regulation in your book.

    4. #believeallchildren

  9. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts…

    You can’t deprive a man of a meme-worthy rhyme.

    1. Would have been, “Sun’s out, guns out,” but this was all happening at night.


    “I want to protect myself and protect others [by mask-wearing], and also because I want to make it be a symbol for people to see that that’s the kind of thing you should be doing,” he added.

    During the interview, the infections diseases expert also admitted that wearing a mask is not 100% effective, but says that it is a gesture that shows “respect” for other people.

    1. It’s a gesture that we’ll kick your teeth in if you don’t do. Out of respect.

      1. It’s a muzzle to let the subjects know their place

    2. Hey Fauci,
      My middle finger has a gesture of respect for you.

    3. 90% effective is still effective. Hell, when it comes to my 90 year old mother not dying of a virus, even 15% effective is still effective.

      You won’t wear a most because it’s not 100% perfect? Fuck you!

      1. I’m not wearing a mask most of the time because:
        A) I don’t have any contact with the elderly
        B) I’m in my early thirties and it is a near statistical certainty that I will be just fine if I get it.
        C) I’m taking a leap of faith that herd immunity is more likely to get this thing under control than a vaccine that may never be developed. I believe it is a better leap of faith than the one that has shut down the economy in a way that has ended up benefiting wealthy cronyists and the maniacs who run our government.
        D) I don’t want to live in a society that thinks this is a normal way to behave. Living is a risk. If it’s not, then it’s not worth doing.

        1. E) Wearing a mask has a non-zero chance of creating a health issuse for the wearer
          F) When weighed against the risk of a 90 year old dying, the potential health issue the mask causes is too high a cost

          Sorry, you’re not gonna socialize your mom’s fragility onto everyone else. Fuck YOU.

      2. You cannot possibly be real and that stupid.

      3. Last year your mother, and more importantly, millions of other mothers were at risk of dying of a virus.

        Did you wear a mask?
        How many did you murder?

      4. What if your Mom likes it when I don’t wear the mask?

        1. I mean she’s got so many other diseases, what’s one more?

      5. We should all enslave ourselves to protect your 90 year old mother.

    4. “says that it is a gesture that shows “respect” for other people.”

      Like a burqa.

    5. “I’d like to create a climate where neighbors control what I do.”
      Peter Kallender, of Southboro MA, arguing against the planned expansion of his neighbor’s private airstrip in a town meeting.

      Cucks have to cuck. We don’t have to be like them.

  11. Minnesota police arrest CNN reporter and camera crew as they report from protests in Minneapolis…

    Don’t worry, Fake News. The charges will turn out to be fake, too.

    1. CNN has such shitty reporters, they weren’t able to ask themselves what what the charges were.

      1. For the win.

        And they call themselves journalists.


    The case is, at heart, straightforward. Twitter is not in itself a media outlet, and thus has no “freedom of the press” defense. Legally speaking, Twitter and its ilk are closer to telecommunications utilities. Hence, an argument could be made that what social media companies have done to Republicans and Trump supporters since 2016 is akin to (just a hypothetical example) Verizon sabotaging Republican party phone lines. Having material value to the Democrats, these actions, by law, must be reported as a form of campaign support.

    Of course, demonstrating pervasive bias and its widespread, practical impact and damage is not as straightforward. Even with a wave of whistleblowers and social media insiders coming forward, it would not be easy to document conclusively and then to convince multiple courts (when the challenge comes) that Trump-supporting persons and media outlets are shadow-banned, harassed, and de-platformed at rates far in excess of Trump’s critics.

    However, what Twitter has done in frantically going up against Mr. Trump directly, in a campaign initiated by a cartoonishly partisan Twitter officer whose hateful tweets about Trump and the Flyover States are up there for all to see, in a manner clearly at odds with the company’s hands-off treatment of other politicians and all Democrat loud-mouths, and on a matter touching upon actual holy voting and the sacred counting of holy votes, is to make all that difficult work unnecessary.

    1. “Campaign finance violations” are an affront to the 1st amendment

      1. A law being bad is not an excuse to apply it selectively against your enemies but not your friends.

        1. Precisely.

      2. ‘ “Campaign finance violations” are an affront to the 1st amendment ‘

        The 1st amendment is just software and has no basis in physical reality.
        /Trying to remember you lesson from yesterday

        1. please never stop

        2. Not quite there yet. But if you keep trying hard, you will learn the definition of software one of these days.

          1. Does it involve unicorn farts? Cuz I heard it includes unicorn farts.

            1. The internet is magic, ipso facto, granting liability protections to publishers on the internet is a moral imperative.

              1. DEFINITION!!!



                1. I have never heard of a software engineer who doesn’t understand anything below the High Level Language Interpreter/Compiler… yet here we have Mag asserting he is one.

          2. It’s like tupperware, but softer.

            1. So if Tupperware and Rubbermaid had a baby?

              1. Shtuppermaid.

    2. Hey, nobody’s calling for suppressing Twitter’s First Amendment rights, but we’re all agreed that commercial speech doesn’t get the same protection as non-commercial speech. Are we seriously going to argue that Citizens United wasn’t the most horrific, corrupt, wrongly decided case in history since Plessy v Ferguson? To the extent that Twitter holds a monopoly on twitter-speech, surely an investigation into potential violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act would be merited, no? Besides, Twitter is a fantastically wealthy corporation and we all know corporations are evil greedy criminal organizations.

      1. “…nobody’s calling for suppressing Twitter’s First Amendment rights…”

        That’s precisely what Der TrumpfenFuhrer and JesseSPAZ etc. are calling for! JesseSPAZ says Twitter etc. are a utility or some such crap, so they must obey JesseSPAZ et al.!!! Libertarians for a BIGGER Government Almighty!

        JesseSPAZ got un-friended on Facebook for being an endlessly boring gasbag blowhard, so now he (and Trump etc.) want REVENGE for such things!

      2. but we’re all agreed that commercial speech doesn’t get the same protection as non-commercial speech.

        Speak for yourself. I’m a libertarian.

        1. Jerryskids is famous for cutting sarcasm… This is sarcasm, I am 99.9999% convinced. See his ending here, that makes it clear it is sarcasm, I have read his stuff for a long time…

          “…Twitter is a fantastically wealthy corporation and we all know corporations are evil greedy criminal organizations.”

          The way I like to put it, again sarcastically, is, money is evil, and as soon as you make a dollar, you are evil, and need to have the snot regulated out of you! However, money is GOOD if it is forced to go from here to there, at Government Almighty’s gunpoint!

    3. ThIs illegal campaign support argument would have been a more solid line of retribution for Trump to take against Twitter than the executive order. I guess there’s still time for him to do both lines of attack.

  13. Protesters have broken into the Ohio Statehouse.

    Finally, the legit excuse Ohioans needed to break lockdown.

  14. Virginia Postrel on how banning Chinese STEM students would backfire.

    This is an attack on Affirmative Action? Because the schools aren’t budging no matter how much Asians complain.

    1. 1934: Virginia Postrel on how banning Nazi German STEM students would backfire. You don’t want them making bad poison gas, do you?

      1. ’34? How about more like ’39-’41? It’s not like the best and brightest minds in China are still hoping they’ll vote out Winnie the Pooh and that the government doesn’t resort to Gestapo tactics.

        You wouldn’t want American Universities discriminating against Germans, preventing the Nazis from developing better rocket technology or nuclear power would you?

  15. Local business wants to properly manage customers’ expectations.

    But where are they wearing the masks?

    1. Over their lips

      1. Kinky….


  16. If it is not mandated, it’s outlawed:

    “Globe turns private homes into WeWorks; SF says that’s a no-no”
    “With Starbucks, libraries and WeWorks closed, San Francisco startup Globe says it has an alternative for people who need temporary offices during the lockdown because their homes are too crowded or noisy. It rents out work space in private residences by the minute.
    But San Francisco says that violates three different laws: the shelter-in-place order, which says people cannot leave their homes except for essential activities; the planning code, which forbids using residential properties for commercial purposes; and the short-term rental law, which regulates rentals of less than 30 days.
    “Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, your operation of Globeliving at properties located in San Francisco raises serious health and safety concerns,” City Attorney Dennis Herrera wrote to Globe last week,..”

    I think JFree has found employment.

    1. “…says people cannot leave their homes except for essential activities…”

      Work isn’t essential when the government is giving you the cheese!

    2. Fuck SF. That is all.

  17. Republican anti-science attitudes are literally killing people. Pew Research explains:

    COVID-19 deaths have declined in Democratic congressional districts since mid-April, but remained relatively steady in districts controlled by Republicans.

    This is consistent with what we observe at the state level as well. Andrew Cuomo (D) has been by far the most effective governor, while the Republicans controlling states like Georgia and Florida have literally conducted experiments in human sacrifice.

    1. Yes, spoof, but GOP districts had a flatter curve and fewer cases. This was a spike in Dem districts that is going away.

      1. You’re misinterpreting the graph. The blue curve bends down more than the red curve. That’s the most important thing.


        1. I don’t understand. Trump killed them all, didn’t he?

    2. Yes! See, this is why I’m emphatic about the fact that the Miami Dolphins are the best team in the NFL. It’s easy to win games when you have good players and good coaches and a good organization – when you’re as shitty as the Dolphins, winning games is extremely difficult and therefore they should get more credit for overcoming their obvious handicaps than teams that have good coaches and good players and good organizations. In the same way, states with really shitty governments deserve more credit than ones with good governments.

      1. Did you just award the Lions the Super Bowl?

    3. Your benefactor’s gonna take a financial hit today…

    4. “Starvation declining faster in big, blue cities than in affluent red suburbs.”

      Talk about spin.

  18. tl;dr version:

    Trump is an idiot for trying to circumvent 1A. Democrats do it too, but are more sly.

    1. Winner

    2. You’re right but you forgot to add that he is an absolute baby that pathetically calls a press conference to announce breathlessly (and in a rant that was, even for him, completely all over the place to an absurd degree) that he is mobilizing the Executive Branch to deal with this UNTHINKABLE tragedy. While it took him three months to stop claiming corona was a hoax, this shit had to be done TODAY cause he Tewweted two days ago and SOMEBODY HAD TO DO SOMETHING

      what a baby. Anyone that supports this down-punching, thin-skinned baby that has a pathetic fake tan and has the audacity to call others “beta cucks” is the biggest joke of all. May Trump acolytes ruin all your daughters’ lives forevermore.

  19. Koch / Reason libertarians don’t just support open borders because we want our benefactor Charles Koch to have the largest possible labor force. We also support open borders because we want to bring in more voters who will support candidates like Ilhan Omar.

    We need to establish an independent federal agency to investigate all officer-involved shootings and excessive uses of force. I am working on legislation to make this a reality.


    MSNBC reporter says “I want to be clear on how I characterize this. This is mostly a protest. It is not generally speaking unruly.”

    As a building burns in the background…


      Minneapolis Police Precinct On Fire After Officers Evacuate Building Amid George Floyd Riots

      1. If this had been alt-righters they would have already nuked Minneapolis and CNN wouldn’t stop telling us it was the only way to save us. Luckily despite all the coverage they like to give them, there’s not enough alt-righters in the entire country to pull off something like this let alone in one city. We’ll see how much longer BLM is useful to the powers at be. I’m not sure what the plan to reign them in is going to be considering the aesthetics. The left dug their own grave here and as usual, the rest of us have to lie in it.

      2. @Julio_Rosas11
        This is the moment when Minneapolis police officers abandoned the 3rd precinct building. Rioters chased them as they left and continued to throw objects at the police vehicles.

        It does not escape my notice that there are blacks and whites alike to be seen among the rioters.

        On a relate topic: it’s fun to watch the pigs outing themselves for the pussies they really are. Minneapolis cops are notorious for their cowardice, and I can’t help feeling a measure of Schadenfreude at seeing it on full display. As a lawyer buddy of mine once told me, the Minneapolis police are probably the only law enforcement officers in this country who don’t get the benefit of the doubt on the stand. That’s saying something.

        1. That’s not a respectful way to speak of our hometown heroes who are the scourge of barefoot white suburban women in nightgowns everywhere.

  21. George Floyd, fired officer overlapped security shifts at south Minneapolis club

    George Floyd and now-former Officer Derek Chauvin both worked security at the El Nuevo Rodeo club on Lake Street, according to Maya Santamaria. Santamaria owned the building for nearly two decades, but sold the venue within the last few months.

    “Chauvin was our off-duty police for almost the entirety of the 17 years that we were open,” Santamaria said. “They were working together at the same time, it’s just that Chauvin worked outside and the security guards were inside.”

  22. “Trump’s tantrum over Twitter “censorship” might play well with his base, but they’re the only ones who don’t seem to know that it’s a joke.”

    Is ENB aware that it’s an election year?

    That part of ENB’s piece was about his threat to go after Twitter, but the next one, the one where he reassures people that, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”, that isn’t just playing to President Trump’s base.

    If President Trump can narrow this election down to all the people against riots and arson on his side and all the people who support riots and arson on the other, he’ll win in the biggest landslide this country has ever seen come November. If you think being against riots and arson only plays to President Trump’s base, you’re nuts.

    Oh, and if Twitter makes itself out to be on the side of the rioters, they won’t fare well in the court of public opinion either.

    1. Our intellectual betters like this as a campaign strategy:

      Dems – pro looters and anti letting you earn a living
      GOP – anti looters and pro letting you earn a living

      1. ENB wasn’t saying that those issues only play to Trump’s base, but it underscores the point that when Trump is going after Twitter, he isn’t just playing to his base there either.

        Social Justice trolls on Twitter are not a groups of people with deep support–not even in the Democratic party.

        Tell the progressives to chew on this: Liz Warren didn’t come in fourth in her home state of Massachusetts because Democrat primary voters are misogynists. Liz Warren didn’t come in fourth in her home state of Massachusetts because she was the only socialist on the primary ballot. Liz Warren came in fourth in her home state of Massachusetts because she was a social justice warrior.

        Social justice warriors don’t enjoy deep support even within the Democratic party, and when President Trump takes them on at Twitter, he’s appealing to a whole lot more than just his base. He’s also appealing to Democrats of all races, creeds, and genders who also can’t stand the social justice warriors on social media.

        1. Honestly, zero sarcasm, I hope someday you and others remember that you typed “Liz Warren came in fourth in her home state of Massachusetts because she was a social justice warrior.

          Social justice warriors don’t enjoy deep support even within the Democratic party….”

          ….the next time someone asserts that states like MA are nothing but “soy boy liberal cuck states.”

    2. If you think being against riots and arson only plays to President Trump’s base, you’re nuts.

      The entire history of who has ruled in China for thousands of years has been about who could maintain civil order. It will be hilarious when Trump wins because the Proggies have destabilized the economy.

      1. Yeah, I’m not sure these folks realize that race riots tend to result in more Republicans being elected into office, now fewer.

        1. In Ilhan Omar’s district? That’s gonna take a LOT of Clorox.

    3. This is an election year, which is why I don’t get his actions. He is the nominee, and his base *will* turn out and *will* vote for him. This is now the “big-tent” part of the campaign for him. The EO doesn’t strike me as a big-tent move.

      1. He’s not actually very smart. He got where he is on gut instinct, quick thinking, cunning and some luck. He will likely do the same again in the coming campaign but some missteps are to be expected.

  23. Yahoo News reports that “Vice President Mike Pence, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow and others are making the argument that it will set a bad precedent to signal that the federal government can go after private companies and seek to penalize them for purely political reasons.”

    All the proof you need that Pence and Kudlow are ignorant, retarded or liars. Even if they’re ignorant of history and have never heard of either Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt, surely they’re both old enough to be aware of the Microsoft “anti-trust” investigation wherein Microsoft was cured of their blatant lèse-majesté in believing they didn’t have to hire shitloads of lobbyists and spread around millions in tribute to the political class in order to conduct their business. Jesus Christ, it’s been a fact for a hundred years or more that if you want to do business in this country you damn well better be greasing some political palms for permission.

    1. Two words, Operation Chokepoint.

    2. Pence and Kudlow are thinking about the good of the economy.

      President Trump is thinking about getting reelected.

      Those two things are often not in harmony, and that is one of the best reasons why elected politicians shouldn’t be put in charge of the economy.

      That being said, beating up on parts of society that are less popular than you is a time tested way to get reelected, and between technology companies and news media, there’s hardly anybody less popular. And what’s Biden going to do in response–defend the most unpopular institutions in our society because doing this sets a bad precedent?

      Here’s another thought: Biden’s versions of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All make Trump’s rants against Twitter seem like nothing as far as being bad for the economy. That doesn’t make Trump’s threats and plans okay, but if this turns into a libertarian beauty contest, President Trump isn’t the only one with warts and moles. In fact, he’s a fucking beauty queen compared to Biden on a whole host of issues.

      Riddle me this: If Trump really wants to strip social media companies of their protection from frivolous lawsuits, then is that better or worse than, say, Biden making social media police speech by way of social justice rules as a matter of law? My understanding is that Biden’s plans for social media aren’t about preserving free speech at all. Rather, they’re about bringing the regulation of speech online into the public sphere.

      1. Biden’s versions of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All make Trump’s rants against Twitter seem like nothing as far as being bad for the economy

        And nothing as far as being bad for freedom in general.


    Armed with guns, a group of African-Americans in Michigan with a group called ‘Legally Armed in Detroit’ that supports open-carry and gun rights for minorities rallied today on steps of State Capitol building in Lansing against the killing of George Floyd.

    1. supports open-carry and gun

      So they are minority white supremacists then?

    2. So do they refer to themselves as LAD or LAID? Either acronym is giggleworthy.

      1. Either way, you can’t get in unless you’re a fan of the D.

    3. I don’t get it–I’ve been informed by Very Smart People that only white supremacists can conduct armed rallies without dying in a hail of gunfire by the police.

    4. Good for them! Literally every black male I know is pro-gun and most are gun owners. There is a huge pro-gun black population and they despise the democrat gun-grabbers. (but still vote Democrat of course… [sigh])

      1. So seeing as how you love the phrase “gun-grabbers” so much…
        Can you name any restrictive gun laws passed under the last administration or the Congress of that period? I’ll wait.

        OK so it’s zero. Cool.

        Now list the ones since 2016. Hint: it’s more than zero.

  25. BEIJING (Reuters) – China will attack Taiwan if there is no other way of stopping it from becoming independent, one of the country’s most senior generals said on Friday, in a rhetorical escalation from China aimed at the democratic island Beijing claims as its own.

    1. Judge Smails : I’ve sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn’t want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.

    2. China wouldn’t be talking all of this shit at Taiwan, if it thought it could actually do something about Taiwan that wouldn’t result in a 100 million plus Chinese taking a dirt map. An important 100 million, not just peasants. Taiwan has plenty of canned sunshine on tap—they’re just smart enough to not say so publicly—and plenty of ways to get it into China that China can neither see nor stop.

      Only a 1,000 miles from Taipei to Beijing. F-35 can do that (though it can’t get back absent serious drop tanks) while carrying the Taiwanese version of a B61. The Three Gorges Dam is even closer. China wouldn’t know it’s being attacked until the flash.

      1. Are you saying Taiwan has nukes, because no one else thinks Taiwan has nukes.

        1. Weird, because they’ve been off-again on-again trying to get them since the mid ’60s, as detailed in this NTI article:

          I disagree with a lot of the author’s analysis, but the article does lay out a timeline with several attempts by Taiwan to publicly develop a nuclear deterrent.

          One of my favorite lines of analysis in the article, because it’s Comey-esque in coming to an opposite conclusion from its premises, is that the US can’t be relied upon to defend Taiwan, Taiwan’s intrinsic military is insufficient to stop a determined Chinese invasion, but nuclear weapons wouldn’t be useful to Taiwan.

          They’re a technological powerhouse. You’re probably posting on a computer utilizing chips from their foundries. They’ve got three serious (2 GW) power stations, and a couple of small research reactors. True, they don’t publicly reprocess spent fuel, and have had a hard time in the past finding places to put it. And the IAEA claims to inspect them. LOL.

          In their position, they’d be silly not to have a turnkey deterrent. Go right ahead and keep believing they stopped trying to build one since 1988. Would you rely on the ‘world community’s positive opinion’ or the promises of the US to keep the CCP out otherwise? Ask the South Vietnamese or Kurds how far that got them.

          1. I’m not saying they shouldn’t try to get one or that I want China to succeed in this endeavor. I’m just don’t think they have one.

            And I don’t see how they can defend themselves from a Chinese invasion without foreign support. And I don’t think they will get it when push comes to shove.

  26. Breaking news: fraudulent stated terms of service are still fraudulent.

    Twitter is a fraudulent service blatantly misrepresenting itself every bit as much as a bottle of water with a label claiming to cure cancer.

    Most rational people on both the left and the right consider it acceptable for the government to engage in some kind of regulation over fraudulent products and services with these kinds of misrepresentations.

  27. Chauvin was our off-duty police for almost the entirety of the 17 years that we were open

    Let that sink in for a second. A cop, who are represented by a union, have fantastic benefits and often make in excess of $100k per year, has a second job for 17 years. WTF is up with that? Sounds like a protection racket to me.

    1. Yeah, that stood out to me too. On the one hand, how much money do these assholes think they need? On the other hand, how do they have enough free time to have a second job? How many of these incidents involve officers who are too exhausted to think clearly because they’re spending their off time bullying people at bars and corner shops?

    2. the biggest gang in the U.S. is the police. If you don’t want us to raid your business every night and arresting all the Johns why don’t you hire a few of our men and they will come by from time to time..

      I also wonder what was Chauvin’s beef with floyd

      1. Maybe cops would garner some sympathy if they didn’t go around arresting and fining people during an immoral lockdown depriving people of their right to earn a living. The law is an ass and cops don’t have to be asses.

        2020 is some and all kinds fucked up so far.

    3. I know someone who retired from the RCMP. At 37. Full benefits. Then went off and started a business.

      Nice racket.

    On Thursday I drove to the part of town the rioters endeavored to destroy:

    At this point I suppose I should be upbraided for caring about property over lives; not the case at all. Just noting the small brushstrokes of the urban landscape as they pass for good. I am worried about lives, inasmuch as the news just reported that the gas mains at the station have been cut and they fear a devasting explosion.

    I am assuming that people concerned with such things are racing to prevent it, and that they may, as instruments of the existing order, be set upon, because they are spoiling the vibe. if there is an explosion, and it levels homes and kills people, will they be collatoral damage to be shrugged off? Ask this woman, who, upon learning the police station was burning, tweeted:

    She is, of course, one of the good people. She believes in the proper things. She is also a white woman in California offering to give matches to a fire that might blow to hell the homes of the people in Minnesota she might otherwise tend to support.

    1. Nice piece by Lileks, especially liked this part:
      “It’s always odd how the people who preach destruction are assumed to have skills in constructing the replacement, as if the fervent desire to tear things down is just one element of an endlessly kaleidoscopic intellect that apprehends what is to be done, and precisely how to do it.

      But the bread runs out. What then? Ah, look over there: another remnant of the old, cursed order. Burn it, and we will be free. Not from want, not from the rule of others, but at least free from the old ways and the whispering voice of one’s conscience. There is a new, louder voice in your ear now, and it approves of all that you do.

      Until, of course, it doesn’t.”

      1. I thought P.J. O’Rourke’s version of that thought was pithier. Of course, it would be.

        “It’s one thing to burn down the shithouse, but it’s a lot tougher to install indoor plumbing.”

    2. Someday soon, Black Lives Matters will realize that so far they have been nothing more than a tool for the rich, white, upper-middle class and Davos crowd, in waging cultural war against the white working class. Then watch out.

      The elite are racing their way towards a revolution.

  29. “Without Section 230, officials could much more easily police what people say about them online, suppress critics, crush rival campaigns, and weaponize platforms like Twitter and Facebook for their own ends.”

    With Section 230, this happens anyway. Like YouTube taking down videos that contradict the WHO party line on the COVID-19 pandemic, even from medical professionals and scientists.

  30. I would buy the outrage here over free speech more if Reason even attempted to spend a few minutes on the Daleiden issue vs planned parenthood in california (you know where they threw a dozen felonies at him for undercover journalism in public places) or went after the big tech companies for censorship.

    But the outrage here is neutered because of the inconsistency on stance. Reasons viewpoint seems to be censorship is fine, just not at a federal level. They ignored california. They ignore big tech.

    They also ignore that the legal protections have extended past just censorship and now cover contract issues against big tech. I have never seen a libertarian outfit be okay with arbitrary changes to a contract like they are for social media. This includes actions against posts prior to said changes.

    Reason doesn’t have a leg to stand on for this outrage. It looks feigned and selective.

    1. By the way… how are the pro protest tweets not encouraging or supporting violence… yet apparently trump’s tweet about reigning in the riots was. Weird.

      1. The same way that racism only exists if one group exercises institutional power over another. Racism, like violence, are contingent. Acts of blatant racism and violence are neither racist nor violent if you hold the correct political views.

      2. I don’t support the rioters and looters — in fact, I have no doubt they are despicable pieces of shit — but I’m finding it impossible to muster any degree of sympathy for the cops here. I’ve never exactly been a fan of the police, but it was living in the Twin Cities that I learned to loathe them. I have nothing but contempt for the Minneapolis Police Department. They are beneath contempt. I’m so glad I no longer live in the cesspool that is Minneapolis.

        1. And then the Mayor tells the cops to stand down and not protect the innocent and private property.

          The state of leadership across North America is completely broken.

          You have idiot mayors, premiers and governors across the board. One too many putzes about to break down and cry like Doug Ford. All politics of fear and emotions run amok save a few scattered places.

          It’s a mess. And the pandemic exposed it.

          1. If you actually expected the cops to protect anything more than government buildings and government employees, current and former, then you really need to have your head checked.

            The public that they protect is everyone else. It’s not bystanders, it’s not businesses, it’s not innocents, it’s not journalists, it’s not you, it’s everyone else.

            1. It’s the same “everyone” who owns “public property.” It’s not really anyone, it’s the *concept* of everyone.

          2. Minneapolis has no shortage of rooftops, so I have to conclude they have a dearth of Koreans.

        2. I don’t find my disgust for the rioters or the cops to be mutually exclusive here.

          One thing that’s notable here is that, with a few exceptions like Memphis, these riots are largely taking place in northern and western cities. As tough as blacks in the South have it, they are at least smart enough to not shit where they eat and burn their neighborhoods to the ground.

          1. Of course, when the arsonists turn out to be organized white soyboys from out of state, that will be of little comfort.

    2. Good point. Focusing on the president instead of obscure issues that you feel to be important is undeniable evidence of TDS.

      1. Intellectual consistency is important. Heck, consistency is important, in general. Focusing on one issue, to the repeated exclusion of others, signals a lack of consistency. A lack of consistency signals disingenuousness. Disingenuousness signals the existence of an ulterior agenda.

        There is nothing wrong with pointing these things out.

        1. You guys talk as if the exclusion is deliberate. Maybe they haven’t heard of these issues. Maybe they figure the number of people who care is so small that it isn’t worth reporting. Who the fuck knows. But to accuse them of deliberately excluding your hobby horse isn’t exactly fair or honest.

          1. //Maybe they figure the number of people who care is so small that it isn’t worth reporting.//

            This would imply the exclusion is deliberate.

            1. They make their money selling advertising. That means they need to report on things that their audience cares about. You and the others who hate Reason and only come here to get your two minutes on aren’t that audience. I’m going back to work now. Happy Friday, fucker.

              1. If you agree that the exclusions are deliberate (which Reason has every right to do), why castigate other people for pointing out that the exclusions are deliberate?


                1. He was broken, and now has no purpose other than being a pathetic troll.

          2. But every cop in podunk, Kansas or Springfield, Mississippi who calls a tranny by the wrong pronoun is definitely worth multiple articles a week

        2. They can’t cover everything. They’ve got to prioritize. You don’t like their priorities. So fucking what.

          Now cue all the “You’re a sock that defends Reason! Aaaauuuggghhh!” hatred. Whatever.

          1. I don’t believe anyone cares about you enough to hate you.

          2. Well, “sarcasmic” is one of your multiple socks…

            Also, funny how neo-Reason’s priorities always line up with the political class’s nowadays.

            1. He’s not. I’m the guy you are probably referring to, who used to defend Reason all the time, and I’m not sarcasmic.

              Anyway, been told by Reason management they are aware of the comment section being infested by a bunch of Trump gaslighters who bitch about Reason all day. Was told that’s why the comments are collapsed by default and they are thinking about getting rid of them altogether.


    “S.E. Cupp, I’d like to introduce you to The Wall. The Wall, S.E. Cupp.
    “Oh, I see you two have already met…? When was that? About six years ago, you say? Ah yes, I can see that now. Yes, I can see The Wall really made an impact on you, S.E.”

    1. Ace of Spades? What a collection of dimwit wingnuts. Bratfart has made that site obsolete.

  32. Twitter posted a message saying “this Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible”

    Oh, FFS!

    It’s “determined” “violations” all the way down. 8-(

    1. And when you eat at your mom’s house, she determines that you have to keep your elbows off the table and clear your dishes. Twitter’s house, Twitter’s determination.

  33. Remember the scene in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest where Will Turner engages Davey Jones in a dice game, betting his eternal fate against the key to the chest containing Jones’s heart?

    Turner knew going in that he wouldn’t win, but he didn’t care. His objective was never to win the game, despite the stakes, because he had no intention of remaining on the ship regardless. As his father realized after the game, he just wanted to trick Jones into revealing where the key was.

    Sometimes the players in a game aren’t trying to win the game that they appear to be playing. Sometimes they have different objectives.

    Donald Trump’s political career has been built on the belief that if he energizes and outrages both “bases”, he’ll win. Essentially, he doesn’t think that he has anything to lose by riling up the Left, because the Left is already perpetually outraged. Trump feels that he needs to inspire the Right to match that level of outrage, and he does so by directing national focus on things that will piss his base off.

    And now we have Twitter and its absurdly partisan content curation. Trump is directing focus at it. Did he issue his EO with the expectation that it would stand? Of course not. It’ll get condemned by Lefty media and struck down by Lefty courts, and the Left and the NeverTrumpers will say “That was stupid on Trump’s part!”

    And all the while, we’ll see more articles like this:

    Social media’s partisan bias is about to get a lot more attention than it got before, and Donald Trump’s actions are the reason. On net, will this be a positive change? Maybe, maybe not, but Donald Trump thinks it will be.

    He’s Will Turner, angling for that key.

    1. Didn’t youtube’s chick CEO admit she’s a lefty piece of shit when she talked about Shapiro a while ago?

      Yeh, Right. As if that doesn’t find its way into its ‘policies’.

      It’s so obvious they play Calvin ball with their policies. There are plenty of ‘non-partisan’ channels who constantly get knocked for some kind of ‘violation’. Many even take the time to explain it. Benjamin Boyce is one example.

      But ENB wants to pretend it’s all in people’s heads.

      Sure. Whatever.

    2. Fair analysis.

  34. masked strippers? Butterfaces unite!

  35. Trump is like the guy who goes to the coffee shop every morning complaining about he coffee that he is drinking. Every morning the same coffee, every morning the same complaint. When right across the street are two other coffee shops. Why the fuck does he keep drinking that coffee when he says he hates it?

    Trump needs to stop using Twitter and get on Facebook or something. Or mail out post-it notes. Or something. This is the most petty person ever to have resided in the White House.

    If you don’t like Twitter than don’t use Twitter!!!

    1. >>Why the fuck does he keep drinking that coffee when he says he hates it?

      you’re being trolled.


    Something like this?

  37. Areas of Minneapolis that have been hit by rioters include a neighborhood I lived and spent of time in after graduating HS. People are assuming this is “the ghetto”. Not really. Until recently it would have been considered a relatively safe place in most major cities. I could walk around there by myself at night 10-15 years ago no problem.

    I’m not saying this to whine about the good old days but because I find it an interesting illustration of progressivism. It was the coolest place to be and very appealing to a younger lap and nothing bad ever seemed to happen. But like everything progressives touch, even things as innocuous as indie bookstores, jazz clubs, and coffee shops, it eventually ends up in fucking flames.

  38. “Based on the track record of Ajit Pai, he has been lobbied to police speech many times, and he has not succumbed to any of those pressures,” said Ashkhen Kazaryan, director of civil liberties at TechFreedom

    nice! I thought I was the only one who thinks Ajit Pai is one of the best things in the executive branch at the moment. Pai is great.

    1. Pai is great.


  39. That cop who murdered George Floyd better get a felony murder charge, with the other three cops as accomplices. I watched that video; it is absolutely horrifying. My first rational thought after watching the video was these cops were going to claim qualified immunity. They’ll argue to the Eighth Circuit that they did not expressly know that kneeing a human beings neck like that for eight minutes would actually kill someone….and no law explicitly said it was illegal. Or some similar nonsense. Just watch. Does MN have the death penalty? Because this is a case where it should apply. That cop murdered this man, right there on the video.

    In my book, it works this way…blow for blow, lash for lash, and life for life.

    As for the riots. That shit needs to end, pronto. The protection of life, liberty and property are the primary functions of government. This riot stuff is bullshit. That means ending the riots by whatever means is necessary and doing it right the fuck now. Bring out the national guard to end the riots. They don’t arrest rioters and talk nice to them, they shoot them. You go wilding and cause mayhem…you belong in a cage, assuming you don’t get your sorry, rioting ass blown away first.

    Non-violent protest is fine. In fact, this murder has so shocked the conscience that I expect loud protest. I literally could not believe my eyes when I watched that video. That something like this could happen in 2020 America is incredible. We should be passionate and upset about it because this should never happen to anyone who is detained/arrested by the police, ever. And it happens more than we care to admit.

    And if these cops claim qualified immunity and manage to get away with that, then maybe a good outcome will be that SCOTUS will do away with QI once and for all. QI was been a 40-year or so experiment and the jury came back: it doesn’t work. SCOTUS can fix their error.

    1. QI is a civil litigation doctrine. It has nothing to do with state criminal charges being filed or not. Which I agree with you on: I can’t see these cops’ conduct being anything other than criminal.

    2. “That cop who murdered George Floyd better get a felony murder charge, ”

      Good luck with that. The only cop I’ve ever heard of getting any punishment for murder, throughout my entire life, was the Fruitvale Station guy.

    3. “You go wilding and cause mayhem…you belong in a cage, assuming you don’t get your sorry, rioting ass blown away first.”

      Not according to all those “libertarians” who bitch about the Central Park 5…

      1. Turns out they didn’t do it…so that’s not a good example.

      2. Hmmmpf…fuck that. You riot, then you seriously take a chance of dying.

    4. I’m not saying that people should be out there attacking the cops that didn’t take part in this tragedy, nor should people be burning/stealing/whatever. But it is a little hollow to see the same people (not saying you’re one of them) on this site that have REPEATEDLY and quite literally threatened armed insurrection over, say, Hillary’s emails or any number of similar things….complain about non-peaceful protests. When they are just hoping, praying, and stocking up for what they refer to as CW2.

      Even worse is that these same folks unanimously condemned Kapernick et al. for engaging in peaceful protest.

  40. Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $16839 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. Now everybody on this earth can get this job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here……..for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lotCopy Here………

    ====>>> Online Pyment account Bank

  41. Of course there’s an Amash quote in the Roundup.

    1. He’s relevant, dammit.

      1. no he isn’t. He stopped being when he left the Ron Paul revolution

  42. Trump isn’t punishing anybody. He’s making a determination that the conditions under which private companies received special exemption from lawsuits don’t apply anymore. Yes, he can do that. No, it’s not a 1A violation for him to do so.

  43. Without Section 230, officials could much more easily police what people say about them online, suppress critics, crush rival campaigns, and weaponize platforms like Twitter and Facebook for their own ends

    Without Section 230, the operators of Twitter, Facebook, and shitty comment sections like this would be sued into oblivion. And that would be a good thing for free speech.

    1. What are you doing here if you think it’s a shitty place to be? You value the minutes of your life that little?

  44. Truly hard to feel sorry for Twitter.

    1. Nobody asking you to. They are doing fine.

      It’s Trump who is coming off looking like a toddler who missed his nap.

  45. “One approach would be to permit all sorts of speech unless legally ordered to take an individual message down, turning large platforms into cesspools.”

    So we can have Liberty, as long as someone is in charge to keep it tidy?

    Reason gets less libertarian every year.

    1. That made zero sense.

      1. If my point wasn’t clear, I’m in favor of doing precisely that, regardless of whether or not Karen thinks the result is a cesspool. I’m with Jefferson, that the cure for bad speech is more good speech.

  46. First why doesn’t the socials offer an electronic bulletin board for peoples views/news/content. Basic rules like you can’t threaten someone and end it there. The “content” managers at these places sound like the bolsheviks in Vienna or Munich or St Petersburg after WWI. They are cultural marxists who believe they are a sovereign nation..they are not. Twitter should fire all these woke/bolsheviks and just allow anyone to post what they want. end of issues.

    1. “Twitter should fire all these woke/bolsheviks”

      Twitter (corporate) is woke/bolsheviks. So, not gonna happen.

  47. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems everyone (Reason, Amash included) are talking past a point: If twitter takes tweets down, or hides, or comments on particular tweets, I think noone disagrees with the fact that *that* tweet isn’t covered. But where the Platform vs Publisher comes in is with views that third party people (twitter users) publish. The implication (legally) is that they endorse those views by allowing them on their platform without comment. This law / regulation (CDA 230) prevents the platform from being liable (so it is not a do-nothing law) for that 3rd party tweet. Trump’s change makes twitter open to liability law if they start picking and choosing comments (censoring). As written, the current law says to protect companies from editorial decisions; trump’s changes says they aren’t protected. Lastly, an executive order can’t change a law (one of the issues brought up), but it can clarify an overly broad law — I’ve seen it happen with respect to tax law; something would seem unconstitutional as written, but the Code behind the law restricts the scope so that the law’s edges don’t get tested. In this case, the law doesn’t talk about a publisher’s liability when it starts to editorialize third party content. As a practical application – if twitter published only third party posts that advocated destruction of someone’s property, and prevented publication of the opposing view point, twitter would have ‘published’ the viewpoint that advocated destruction. The target of twitter’s advocacy might sue twitter for taking that position. Add whatever other details you need to make it work.

    I’m not saying that the scenario presented above is my position on how liability works. I am saying that the legal minds in the blogospere are not talking about this aspect of the order. Please do — not being a lawyer I’m not going to understand all of the nuances without people talking about them. But I do know enough to know when the conversation is missing something.

  48. From the sound of it, it looks like a lot of powerful Democrats want the same thing their Trumpian counterparts do. cedar park electrician

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.