Can someone explain this? I have yet to see a single book cited that can't be found and purchased in the US using a quick search.
The book ban lie from the left.
- Thread starter ao5884
- Start date
Right, so they put books in schools of young school children graphically depicting oral sex and parents(some) logically asked for those books to be removed from their young children's libraries and apparently that is "book banning."
Yeah that is not book banning only a moron would believe it is.
You can walk out your front door and yell your tweet, you are not guaranteed a platform on twitter.
Then twitter should not have section 230 protection
They shouldn’t be spreading our government’s lies, either.
The intent of Section 230 (c) is to specifically provide them with protection to control their own platform.
230(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(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).
AND when they start controlling what is on said platform they should be held responsible for the content. Why because at that point they are framing and developing the content on their platform.
So in your scenario, twitter could allow kids to be contacted with undesirable material on their feed and face no repercussion, but as soon as they start pulling that down, they can? And you are ok with school districts providing that same protection to kids?
Again 230 provides them the protection you don't want them to have. maybe you would prefer congress change the law.
They should be responsible for the results of everything that is on their platform because they actively determine what is allowed on the platform......do I need to draw you a picture? You don't get to say "we determine what is on our site" then turn around and say " we are not responsible for the results of what we determine can be on our site" again when you start framing and developing content you are no longer a platform and should not have the protections of a platform.
You sound like one of those freaks who think gun manufacturers should be held responsible when someone uses their gun to kill a person.
Nope because a gun manufacturer doesn't have the ability to take back a gun from a citizen. They are not determining who can and cannot use their product. See the difference?
Doesn't matter how much money is thrown at education when the libs are setting the agenda.
Anyone trying to equate keeping pedophiles from giving young kids books on gay sex with censoring of political books is…..
a pedophile enabler, not a free speech crusader.
a pedophile enabler, not a free speech crusader.
Ok, so I am old and heterosexual so maybe I just don't get it but can any lefty out there please explain why this should be on a recommended reading list for 7th graders? For that matter if it described the same thing for boys and girls in a hetero setting why does it belong in school and 7th grade??
I just don't understand why who ever put this on the list shouldn't be asked to resign immediately.
A classic prog strategy. Do something extreme just to poke the wasp nest. Then when people try to stop them....play victim. Being a victim is by far their best skill and main tactic.
