Tag: section 230

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and host of the The Daily Wire’s podcast “The Michael Knowles Show” Michael Knowles joined Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss everything from censorship by big tech to Tik Tok and the Chinese Communist Party. Sen. Cruz and Knowles co-host the political podcast “Verdict With Ted Cruz” in which Cruz gives his take on the most important national news.

The senator argued that although media bias has been around forever, it’s immensely dangerous that a handful of monopolies now control every means of discourse. Similarly to China, the left, who controls all the major institutions in America, doesn’t want people to thoughtfully communicate their ideas because they don’t work. They must suppress free speech and silence the truth, Sen. Cruz said, because truth prevails if the discourse allows for it.

Seth had the day off today so it was just Jay, Grant, and Park. In the first part of the show, the guys were joined by attorney Kyle Sammin to discuss his latest piece in the magazine called, Solving the social media standoff. Kyle goes into some possible solutions that don’t go as far as eliminating Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act but perhaps adding a new category specifically related to big social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook.

Also discussed is the renewed fight over statues and how people warned several years ago it would go beyond Confederate figures and begin to target figures such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Brendan Carr joined host Ben Domenech to discuss Google’s recent attempt to censor The Federalist and potential reform to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, under which big tech companies operate.

Carr favors Section 230 Reform after seeing the lack of accountability regarding recent events. Google’s actions, he argued, go beyond their right to free speech and demand public accountability to their public representation. While some think that big tech companies have a right to do what they want as a private company, Carr explains that Section 230 actually gives them advantages over other types of companies.

There is an in-depth discussion this week covering three issues that broke just this week

First, the guys talk about the SCOTUS Bostock decision regarding Title VII of The Civil Rights Act, Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion, and whether or not it was the court writing legislation instead of interpreting the law.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Tweeting vs. Rioting

 

The explosive video of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, a white male, with his knee firmly planted on the neck of local, black resident George Floyd for nearly nine minutes, brings to public attention two forms of immunity from liability.

The first is a police officer’s broad level of qualified immunity. Floyd, who was detained under suspicion of passing a counterfeit $20 bill, became non-responsive and died shortly thereafter. Several days later, Office Chauvin was charged with murder on the correct ground that he lost his qualified immunity from prosecution because his actions so manifestly violated established norms of police behavior. That charging decision was met with universal approbation across the political spectrum, but was preceded by widespread acts of violence in Minneapolis and around the nation, bringing massive destruction to the property of innocent residents, which only intensified even after the prosecution was announced.

There are many urgent and cogent calls today to reduce the burdens needed to overcome the qualified immunity for police officers, calls that are long overdue. But just as police officers must be held accountable for the damage they cause, so too must the rioters who have opportunistically used Floyd’s killing to inflict further harm on innocent bystanders. The First Amendment’s right of the people “peaceably to assemble” provides no immunity to such acts of violence.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Member Post

 

I’m no expert but, as even the experts disagree, I’ll feel as free as always to offer my non-expert opinion. (That well-established fact, that experts can disagree about things, should make us all pause for just a moment.) You’ve heard about “Section 230,” a part of the federal Communications Decency Act that grants online content […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

It was one thing when people argued over ventilators and lockdowns. But naturally, a culture war had to arise out of the coronavirus, and wearing masks is it. Who should wear them and when? Should the government mandate it and for how long? Also, is it right to shame people who choose not to wear one?

Links to the stories Park mentions: