Hillary: ‘We Lose Control’ if Free Speech Flourishes on Social Media
“We should be in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass pass-throughs that they shouldn‘t be judged for the content that is posted.”
Oh, look. The 2016 presidential loser is still pushing for censorship!
Hillary Clinton wants the state and federal government to regulate social media.
Of course, Hillary invokes “the children” argument:
CLINTON: “Well, Michael, there are people who are championing it, but it‘s been a long and difficult road to get anything done actually, we can look at the state of California, the state of on New York. I think some other states have also taken action, but we need national action. And sadly, our Congress has been dysfunctional when it comes to addressing these threats to our children‘s. so you‘re absolutely right. This should be at the top of every legislative, political agenda. There should be a lot one of things done. We should be in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass pass-throughs that they shouldn‘t be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that that was an overly simple view that if the platforms, whether it‘s Facebook or Twitter or x or Instagram, or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don‘t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it‘s not just the social and psychological effects it‘s real harm, it‘s child porn and threats of violence, things that are terribly dangerous.”
NEW: Hillary Clinton says Section 230 should be repealed, which is what exempts media platforms from being held criminally liable for what’s said on the platform.
Clinton: “If they don’t moderate and monitor content, we lost total control.” pic.twitter.com/Tb0GX9TjrC
— Trending Politics (@tpbreaking) October 5, 2024
Hillary is talking about Section 230 of the Communications Act:
The statute generally precludes providers and users from being held liable— that is, legally responsible—for information provided by another person, but does not prevent them from being held legally responsible for information that they have developed or for activities unrelated to third-party content. Courts have interpreted Section 230 to foreclose a wide variety of lawsuits and to preempt laws that would make providers and users liable for third-party content. For example, the law has been applied to protect online service providers like social media companies from lawsuits based on their decisions to transmit or take down user-generated content.
The fight over Section 230 ramped up after 2016 but exploded when COVID hit.
In June 2021, Democrat Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Ben Ray Luján introduced legislation to hold social media platforms accountable when people post “misinformation” about vaccines and health information.
I don’t think anything happened with it. Luján and Sen. Chris Murphy reintroduced the legislation under the name Promoting Public Health Information Act in February 2023.
It looks like that hasn’t gone anywhere, too.
Thank goodness.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There goes that vile skank wh*re saying the quiet part out loud again.
Sorry wh*re, you don’t control us.
We can say and think what we want.
And oh yeah, you will NEVER be POTUS, lol
Shrillary could never make it as a whore. She hit the streets once, years ago, and came back to Bill after a long day.
“How much did you make?” Bill asked.
“A hundred and thirty six dollars …. and … twenty five cents.” Shrillary responded.
“And twenty five cents?? Who gave you a quarter?”
“Everyone.”
Bada boom!
“We can say and think what we want.”
Paulibus, if you really why the strategic placement of asterisks in certain words?
1. Simple politeness.
2. While we certainly can say whatever we want, many sites have automatic filters that block comments with words that the owners don’t want posted. Which of course is their choice. LI doesn’t seem to have that at the moment, but many people have a habit of disemvoweling vulgarities in order to get around such filters.
Hence also such long-standing ‘net conventions such as “pr0n”.
Oh. So “wh*re” is impolite but “skank” is not?
Yes. That is the case. Just as in older books it was acceptable and common to write “d—” but not “damn”.
They have Democrats Propaganda Ministry and still its not enough.
My question is who is it this “we” she is talking about.
Deep state.. the uni party
Soros, gates Obama
Bushes.. chaneys
And other slimes folks living under rocks
Fellow Communists
The Democrats have gone full one party rule, and their chief mouthpiece is a crazy old Jew-hating harridan.
I’ll grant you crazy and harridan, but she doesn’t seem to hate Jews. Not even her mechutonim.*
* The people whose child married your child. He’s your mechuten, and she’s your mechutenesta. And now you know.
“We lose control”
Ha ha. Hillary couldn’t even control her own husband when left alone with an intern in the oval office.
Repealing section 230 would not allow the federal (or any state) government to regulate social media. That would violate the first amendment. Without 230 platforms would lose their immunity for third party content. Repeal would not allow for criminal prosecution. Governments can only prohibit obscenity or child pornography.
As a lawyer Clinton should know better than to make such statements. How did she pass her com law course? Well Clinton failed the DC bar exam as she admitted in one of her books. The DC exam is one of the easier exams, not nearly as hard as (say) the California bar exam. Even the CA bar as not very hard as my daughter told me, The DC exam is so easy one can place out of it if. you get a high enough score on the CA exam. Evidently the Arkansas bar is even easier as Hillary passed that one.
I wonder if Harry is beginning to suffer from senile dementia. She’s 76 and Ronald Regan was already showing signs of it at that age.
It’s not that Hillary doesn’t know the Constitution, esp. 1A. It’s that she, along with 000s of D politicians, won’t obey their volition-ally taken Article VI to follow the support and defend the Constitution.
1. Repealing § 230 wouldn’t actually do very much, since its effect is mostly required by the constitution anyway. Even without it providers have the status, not of publishers (like newspapers) but of distributors (like bookstores) and thus can’t be held liable for content they’re unaware of and have not been put on notice of its legal problems.
The section’s original purpose was to require providers to censor user-provided content, while assuring them that doing so won’t make them liable for what they don’t censor. But SCOTUS struck down the requirement, leaving them with the option, which they always had anyway.
The section did overturn a bad court decision that held that the moment a provider did any content moderation it became a publisher, but that decision would surely have been overturned on appeal anyway.
230 leaves me confused. I understand the idea behind not holding platforms liable for content posted to their sites by others, that makes sense, they aren’t newspapers, the posters are not their employees and they’re not exercising editorial control. But then along comes President Trump, and all of a sudden they start exercising editorial control over what users post, which really ramped up during Covid and the 2020 election and continues to this day. Seems to me this should end their ability to hide behind 230. Once they start exercising editorial control aren’t they taking responsibility for what is posted in their sites. If they’re taking responsibility, then shouldn’t they be liable??? In any case, Ms. Clinton’s comments and behavior now and since 2016 remind us of the huge favor President Trump did for the US and the world in stopping her election to the presidency.
Going after section 230 was a big thing during Trump’s first term. Someone like Trump is what you get when the authoritarian left can’t control every thing we read and hear and that’s just not acceptable.
They should be a publisher or a platform but not both.
Bingo. It’s the debate in a nutshell.
If you want to take advantage of an exemption for channels that don’t moderate, it should be ILLEGAL for you to moderate. But that’s not what’s happening.
Reminds me of Reagan’s stupidest free-market reform: removing banks’ bar to investing in risky ventures, without also removing the FDIC safety net for those who chose that route. And we all paid the price for that.
That’s where you’re wrong. The exemption was never for channels that don’t moderate. The whole point of § 230 was that Congress wanted providers to moderate content (indeed initially required them to do so) and the providers said they couldn’t do that if that would make them liable for whatever they don’t take down.
No, by moderating some content they do not automatically become publishers, and thus liable for everything that appears on their site. Not only does § 230 explicitly provide so, but really so does the constitution.
Newspapers and other publishers are responsible for everything they publish, even content provided by third parties, because they read everything before publication and decide what to put in and what to leave out. Nothing appears in a publisher’s output without an editor having made a positive decision that it should be included. And that is the key point that makes the publisher liable.
Platforms such as X, Facebook, and Legal Insurrection don’t read and approve content before it appears. Thus they can’t be aware of it all, and it would be unconstitutional to hold them liable for it all. Rather, they read some content after it appears, and remove it if they don’t like it, but they still don’t read all of the content, and in many cases couldn’t even if they wanted to.
Even without § 230, that would put them in the same position as bookstores, which are not publishers but distributors, and are thus only liable for illegal content they carry if they have been put on notice of it and of its illegal nature and persist in carrying it.
At least that’s my understanding of the underlying constitutional situation.
That’s helpful, thanks. Unfortunately this gives them the best of both worlds, they can shape opinion by selectively deleting, but then hide behind 230 saying they aren’t liable, they just provide a platform. Seems like they should be either a platform or a publisher, but not both. But they’re private sites, so they have the right to limit what appears there, and I wouldn’t want government impinging on private property rights even more than they already do. It’s a problem,
Where the argument really is on things like this is how much did the government influence what they took down. If someone posts something illegal (child porn, actual threats of violence, classified materials) and the government tells them to take it down that is ok. If someone post so called misinformation and they take it down on their own that is ok. If someone makes a completely legal post that the government views as misinformation and tells them to take it down that is a 1st amendment problem. If I recall the latest decision from a court said that during covid the government asked them to take things down and they could have legally refused and did not so there was no violation. Now we hear from employees of Facebook and Twitter that there were implied threats and I am not sure if those did not make it into the court case or if they did not have enough actual proof that the court took them seriously.
That’s one argument. But many people, particularly on our side of politics, including many commenters right here on LI, want § 230 to be repealed and for the situation to be reset to the infamous court decision in the Compuserve case: that the moment they exercise any content moderation they become a publisher, and are liable for anything they didn’t remove, even if they never saw it. That would automatically shut down all online forums, including this one that we’re using right now. It would be terrible. It would also be unconstitutional, but it would take at least a year of litigation to establish that, and in the meantime most such forums would die.
Again, they aren’t both. But you’re ignoring what they actually are, in actual fact rather than being merely deemed so by law: distributors. Like bookstores, they are entitled to refuse to carry any content they object to. And like bookstores they can’t be held liable for content they do carry, unless you can prove that they have read it, are or ought to be aware that it’s illegal, and chose to carry it anyway.
“Clinton: “If they don’t moderate and monitor content, we lost total control.”
Good.
You’re not supposed to HAVE control over speech, you damned traitor.
Trump’s original sin was keeping this woman from becoming President of the United States, a sin that in their minds is unforgivable.
And with this clip you can see why it was so very important to the cause of liberty to keep her from being president.
May she spend the (hopefully few) remaining days on this earth bitterly drowning in wine and regret.
I smile every time I envision Hillary in pillary and stocks in the village square.
My thoughts run to hemp When woven into a specific manner that allows people to tie things up.
I can on short notice get 12×6 trailers full of rotten fruit n veggies to throw at her.
And I bet they find you much faster than they found the people who ordered all the half-bricks delivered to street corners for the George Floyd riots. Because in your case, they’ll actually look.
None of this ends well, so perhaps we should cut out the crap and air our grievances face to face.
I see no alternative.
It would almost be better
Except that they have the entire arsenal including jets, and yes, they would use them against us, that I have no doubt
We, on the other hand have the Cajun Navy
Typical Liberal, it’s all about control, everything all the time. They know how to live your life better than you.
Dear God
I supported this woman initially when it was McCain vs Obama/ Hillary
I mean I was still a democrat and don’t believe what they said about her. I knew Obama was a con man race bigot
I did learn quickly and voted McCain, but that was really for Sarah
Who we don’t hear anything from. I don’t really understand that
She had her life trashed publicly for years and I suppose chose to fade back into the obscurity from which she came.
It the base does love her and she would have been Alaskas congresswoman if not for ranked voting
A shame if ever
A solid majority of voters said they didn’t want her, and would prefer the Democrat to her. Therefore it is right and just that she lost. The fact that without giving people that option she would have been imposed on them is a point in favor of the system. Making her the winner when the majority didn’t want her would have been unfair and wrong.
McCain wouldn’t have gotten half the votes he did with Sarah. She’s who I voted for. Not him.
Me too. If it were possible to vote for her and not him, I would have done so.
I really need to do daily hail Mary’s for ever believing in this woman
I detest her so
Don’t feel bad. When I was younger and stupider, I actually was a donor to Handgun Control, Inc.
Not something I ever thought I would hear from a John Ross reader! 😮
I remember the lesbian screeching at Bill’s inauguration that America finally had a first lady you could f*ck.
That was the first taste of their class.
what is she talking about? 230 protected the boards from getting sued over removing legit info on covid, remove 230 and boards/chat room/etc will be liable for removing legit info
No, they won’t. The constitution protects their right to remove any info they want to, legit or illegit. § 230 protects them from being held liable for not moderating everything on their sites, which would be impossible.
Sorry, but if Facebook et al. are publishers, they can gatekeep anything they want, but they also have to gatekeep everything.
If they are not publishers, it’s a whole different ballgame. Even if it takes another act of Congress to straighten that out.
By the way, if Section 230 isn’t such a big deal, why do Democrats in positions of power keep threatening to revisit it?
Call her daddy goat gots Kamala harder than legacy media
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/call-her-daddy-host-asks-kamala-harris-why/
Oh, Hillary! You’ve managed to get it right for once. YES! You DO lose control when people have free speech. THAT”S THE POINT.
She dresses like an actual post-apocalyptic apparatchik in that gray Nehru jacket …
Social media is an existential threat to the Left’s propaganda scheme which is why they hate and despise Musk and X.
You put your censorship in, you take your censorship out,
You put your censorship in and shake it all about,
That’s what it’s all about!
(w/ apologies to the Hokey Pokey)
Here’s a disturbing thought: What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it’s all about?
All tyrants want control.
Name a Democrat leader that did not try and control you?
Tulsi Gabbert
RFK Jr.
Hmmmmm….
I know it’s been said, but it is worth saying again: The entire point of the First Amendment and the Right to Freedom of Speech is precisely to prevent Government from “taking control.” Her statements show why she, and those that think like her, are completely unfit to hold an government office of any kind.
We The People have the right to control our own narratives.