Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet'

>"""leaked draft""""
Holy fuck, they found out that Trump is going to start up the CIA and FBI!!!!
SOMEONE STOP HIM!!1!11!1!!

Are you implying that trannies are suppressed in any american owned social media website?

No, I'm saying that you need to host their content and their opinions on your platform, since you believe free speech means allowing any and all opinions on your platform, even if you think they're harmful.
Same for pedophiles and furries too. You NEED to give them a platform, otherwise you're suppressing their views.

>end free speech on the Internet
that ship has sailed, doesn't make any difference to me if it's the government in DC instead of the shadow government in SF doing the censoring.

Those arent people you indoctricated retard LOL

Attached: 1562726790504.jpg (293x326, 10K)

Yes you were just being ironic, you totally believe in free speech.
We need to remember to allow NAMBLA to have their platform too. After all refusing to give a platform to people you disagree with is CENSORSHIP

You're stupid of you think tech giants "control speech" on the internet. Government censorship is entirely different from a private entity like Facebook or Twitter censoring content on their own platforms.

ROLFLMAO i'm not the same fag.
I'm gonna blow your small mind right now:
Why are all people supposted to be equal?

Who said anything about equality? Are you saying "less equal" people shouldn't have free speech? If not, why are you trying to change the topic?
If you don't want to censor people, clearly you MUST host their views, even if you think their views are disgusting.
After all, that's the problem with silicon valley, they don't want to host race realism and right wing opinions simply because they disagree with them. A private platform choosing not to host views they disagree with is CENSORSHIP.
So are you for censorship, or are you for free speech?

washingtonexaminer.com/trump-signs-anti-pornography-pledge

Sounds like they're really terrified about the possibility of the likes of Facebook and Twitter losing their ability to censor everyone who isn't politically correct enough.

>Trump is removing a section in the law that says companies can decide what speech is allowed and what isn't allowed on their platforms
>Now all speech is protected
>THIS IS CENSORSHIP

Can someone explain this to me?

>Government censorship is entirely different from a private entity like Facebook or Twitter censoring content on their own platforms.
In principle, but not in effect. If Facebook, Twitter and Google decide that certain kind of speech is banned, then 90% of people are never going to see it.

>CDA 230 is the basic law that makes it possible for online platforms to let users post our own content, and to make basic decisions about what types of content they as private entities want to host.
Which basically means that if this is repealed, the government can force websites to publish things? Is that what they're arguing?

How is it better that a corporation can censor anyone and blacklist anyone, like Bank of America jettisoning the NRA's bank accounts? Aren't these people always going on about the evils of the capitalists controlling everything?

It's their free expression to not host that content.

>Freedom of speech is being forced to host views you do not want on your private platform
This is in direct violation of free expression. Good luck getting that past the supreme court!

Meanwhile, the only place on the internet more racist than Jow Forums and its sister boards on other chans is Facebook.

>take over moderation from ultra cuck left win mods on admins on all major internet sites
>bad

lmao I hope this gets passed asap.

Actually it's their freedom of association, not their freedom of expression.

That's one of the main issues here, racist right wingers believe they get to choose your right to association, and they get very upset when you point out that nobody has to deal with Jow Forums shit unless they choose to.

>no americans on the internet
based trump
praise kek

>Freedom of speech is being forced to host views you do not want on your private platform
They're not platforms. They're publishers of user-created content and they're liable for censoring the publication of user content. It's the same as if someone decided to use a loudspeaker to shout down a speechgiver; it's censorship and violation of people's freedom of speech, even if they're not a government employee acting in an official capacity, because government is not the only entity capable of violating your rights.

I can't argue with that. Thanks for the correction.

Attached: 493c39afaa99559bf45b849b464b75d5bf8d637e01ebd9db94a4571788b98932.png (550x563, 151K)

>Jow Forums moves to another website
>anti-Jow Forums moves to get them kicked off servers or shut down their website

>anyone who isn't a leftist radio host gets their advertisers spammed
>left-wing activists demand that their radio hosts be given equal airtime despite pulling in tiny listerner numbers

Actually, their rights ARE being violated.

you argue like an underage fucking retard. fucking go back to wherever you came from newfaggot

so monopolies are good when white people suffer?

>anti-Jow Forums moves to get them kicked off servers or shut down their website
Wrong, it's just that Jow Forums is such a shitstain that it doesn't matter who they try to associate with, the answer will always be no. Nobody is going out of their way to do anything except deny association, which is their fundamental right and you don't get to whine about that.

>HURP DERP CLOUDFLARE IS Jow Forums

>They're not platforms. They're publishers of user-created content and they're liable for censoring the publication of user content.
And since they are private publishers they are free to not associate themselves with whatever you want published.
You want the Government to force them to publish content they do not wish to host. Is that free speech?

>It's the same as if someone decided to use a loudspeaker to shout down a speechgiver; it's censorship and violation of people's freedom of speech, even if they're not a government employee acting in an official capacity, because government is not the only entity capable of violating your rights.
So people who disagree with you do not have the right to freely express themselves and drown out your speech? You believe the Government must step in and stop them from "censoring" you. What is it called when the Government stops someone's free expression again?
You do not have the right to a platform. You do not have the right to be heard. Your peers are freely able to censor you if they have the means and will to do so.
Society doesn't tolerate pedophilia, are pedophiles being censored? Under your system we would NEED to make sure people hear their views, otherwise it's censorship.

>It's their free expression to not host that content.
Sure, in the same way a monopoly has the freedom to charge you 10000% markups on their products. Just because it's not expressly banned by the constitution doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it.

That is unless you are a public square. The courts have ruled that Trump cannot block people from seeing his tweets due to the fact that Twitter is a new public square. They host government institutions and take taxpayer money. These companies are not solely private platforms that may forbid speech they don't like.

>I'm suffering cause Twitter doesn't agree with me!

So you wish to have the Government limit someone's free expression by forcing them to host content they do not want to host.
You want the Government to censor people who don't agree with you, so your views, which people don't agree with and do not want to host, can be seen by others.
Perhaps you should convince other people of your views, and not rely on Government censorship to promote yourself.

>Nobody is going out of their way to do anything except deny association, which is their fundamental right
>Deny their fundamental right
Do you hear yourself?

so that's a yes?

I'm so disgruntled at this point I'll all for it. You niggers want to deplatform someone for "hate speech"? Okay, so now you can have the government regulate what YOU say too, not so fun now, is it? Fun fact, there is no such thing as hate speech in the USA.

Most of the sites I visit have onion domains anyway so go ahead, burn everything to the ground and enact a new world order. Maybe we'll get some more mass shooting that I can die in.

No, user, that's not how it works. Trump can't block access to his tweets because government officials cannot deny channels of communication with their constituents. That's it. There's literally nothing stopping Twitter from saying "Members of government cannot post on our service exclusively because we disagree with them, Trump included".

Twitter can shut his account down all they want.

Government can't regulate speech on the Internet, that's clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. There is an amendment right after that one which ensures this.

Attached: 1561870729169.png (528x481, 281K)

>So people who disagree with you do not have the right to freely express themselves and drown out your speech?
They literally don't. That's the whole point. One group is not allowed to violate the rights of another by having one shut down the other. Both sides are allowed their freedom of speech.

Rights are not supposed to be violated, whether that's by private groups like the KKK or governments like China.

No, that's a rebuttal of your laughable hyperbole.

Yes, should I repeat the part where right wingers can't figure out that they don't get to decide someone else's freedom of association? You DO NOT get to decide this for someone else, fact. Least of all when you're whining about Twitter.

Anyone who supports this is repugnant. This site at one time gave rise to those oldfags who were the final boss of the Internet, opposing attempts to fuck with the openness, privacy, and other tenets of the Internet by corporate and govt attempts alike.

Now I see excuses from pol-yps who are so assblasted by fear of trannies and brown people they are willing to accept internet freedom being destroyed if someone's tells them it will own the libs. Disgustingly mindfucked.

>nothing stopping Twitter from saying "Members of government cannot post on our service exclusively because we disagree with them, Trump included"
Isn't that what happened with Mitch McConnell this week?

But now people are saying, no, Twitter is in the right to shut down anyone we disagree with and their speech isn't protected by anything?

Won't stop them from trying. And since when does the government care about rights? It's 2019, everyone is in a constitution-free zone since you live within 900 million miles away from a border.

>You want the Government to censor people who don't agree with you, so your views, which people don't agree with and do not want to host, can be seen by others.
If the alternative is Google doing that? Yes. At least the government can be held accountable, while it seems that people like you would be perfectly fine with it if Google employees seized your property and then shot you behind the barn.

>cops disproportionately arrest niggers
>racism
>bigtech disproportionately bans whites
>freedom of association

you'll all be shot point blank come dotr.

You conveniently ignored the fact that these institutions take taxpayer money and host governmental bodies while platforming over 90%, or at the least the vast majority of the speech on the internet. They are public squares and must abide by the 1st amendment.

This is unironically good.

This is actually designed to punish sites which censor political wrongthink like twitter and facebook.

They are different in both principle and effect. Facebook and Twitter are platforms that are optional to use. I never use either. If they are both censoring content, it doesn't affect the content I see online because I don't use those services.

If the government has the authority to censor every website, then it won't matter if you, individually, do not use one of these big services because now all websites are censored, and there is no option to go somewhere else.

Massive difference. If you can't see that, you're too far gone to save.

>They literally don't.
They literally do. There are plenty of examples of this in real life
youtube.com/watch?v=S7CRpr-Ms4U
youtube.com/watch?v=ZfUEF_wqSB8
Here's two examples, one audible, one physical.

> One group is not allowed to violate the rights of another by having one shut down the other.
The 1st Amendment only applies to the Government. Your peers are free to tell you to shut the fuck up, and if enough people think your views are disgusting (see: pedophiles) they can legally ostracize you and refuse to associate with you at all.

>Rights are not supposed to be violated
If you wish to have the Government prevent people from letting you speak to others, you are censoring their free expression. They find your views so bad that they are protesting them, that's their right to free expression, and you wish to violate it.

Yes, that's correct.

Did you know you don't have a right to go to your local news and force them to show a video of you being harassed on the next broadcast? "BUT MUH RIGHTS!" Yes that's right that isn't one of your rights. It's not any different for Twitter.

>weak incel Jow Forums memes
Police actually are responsible for citizens rights, Twitter isn't. Unironically, have sex, you need human interaction.

>Yes, should I repeat the part where right wingers can't figure out that they don't get to decide someone else's freedom of association? You DO NOT get to decide this for someone else, fact. Least of all when you're whining about Twitter.
Ah, only other people can decide where and when they can associate. If they force people to use telegrams and ham radios to talk to one another, they're not violating anyone's rights. Clearly this is what is meant by freedom of association.

I've got a draft proposal for how I'm going to slap my nuts against your mom's thighs you little wimp

If you don't like free expression then you'll have to change it. I'm just telling you the facts in this situation. You want to violate the free expression of private people so your views can be given a platform.

The Supreme Court would take up a high profile case like this in no time. Remember the Travel Ban? All it takes is one lower court to say this law is unconstitutional, and it'll be put on hold until the Supreme Court rightly rules it's unconstitutional.

Sorry, my site has a strict policy of banning users who talk about any gender issues at all. What's currently getting the social media companies into hot water is their banning and censorship of political views and topics without them actually having rules which are enforced unilaterally available to the public's view. In effect, this EO will do nothing to sites who have a clear moderation policy which they strictly enforce. Rather, it will only hurt sites who have ulterior motives and politically motivated mods and jannies who censor people who aren't breaking any rules, or who fail to censor people who they like but whom are breaking rules.

You should be scared you dumbfuck cunt.

These institutions take advertising money, not taxpayer money. The fact that they have traffic is irrelevant, you do not get to choose for them. If our only form of publishable communication was still books or pamphlets then your argument would mean that ever book publisher is forced to publish whatever some jackass forces him to "cause that's important for the jackass's freedom of speech!!!"

You, as an individual, are irrelevant. The issue isn't you, personally, it's the society at large. It doesn't matter if you go to some secret club because the vast majority of people don't do that, they use facebook and they use twitter and they use google.

>These institutions take advertising money, not taxpayer money.
LOL

twitter takes cash from the govt libtard

>google can ban rayciss, freedom of association
>you can hire only white people in your own company; no, that's discrimination

dilate

>private people
No, I want to violate the free expression of multi-billion dollar corporations. Corporations are not people, despite what the constitution says, and treating them as such is totally fucking idiotic.

In that case let this law go into effect, then sites will have to explicitly make it against the rules to post things like "white nationalism" and "race realism".
Then there'll be no debate, you're not allowed to post that content on the sites, they expressly forbid it.
Oh I'm SO afraid

A very weak argument. Notice how he's trying to simplify it to "they". In reality, of course the average person can tell people to fuck off. He thinks he got protection from other people's freedom of association.

Examples.

Oh wow its as if you all met up somewhere and discussed what should the counter argument to this leaked secret document

>>They literally don't.
>They literally do. There are plenty of examples of this in real life
What was intended by the first sentence is
>No, they literally don't have the right to drown out other people's speech or try to silence them.

The Bill of Rights is not intended solely to apply for the government. That implies that the KKK could go to any black-owned business, threaten the storeowner with death or worse if he doesn't leave town, and only be fined for trespassing because the government didn't violate anyone's rights. Your position implies that anyone who gets told they can't vote in a municipal election because they're of a politically disadvantaged group is not having their rights violated because they're not trying to vote in a federal election under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and so they have no right to be treated equally under the US Constitution.

>You're censoring people by not allowing them to censor people
That's not how rights work.

That's why Twitter is forced to claim they're not a publisher of content. Publishers of content can make that decision; "public squares" cannot and have to be open to all manner of speech. However, Twitter/Facebook/et al; argue that they are not public squares when it suits them, like when trying to persuade legislatures they have no authority over what content they host, until they ban what they disagree with.

So Hiroyuki is a multi-billion dollar corporation?
American law is based on precedence.

please end Jow Forums(nel) please end Jow Forums(nel)

>Hiroyuki
Literally who?

No, the actual argument is that people who sell printing presses wouldn't be allowed to say
>Oh I disagree with your views/oh I'm being threatened by people who disagree with your views so I will not sell you a printing press to let you publish your speech
That's what happens when people try to tell hosting companies and advertisers not to allow someone to set up a website.

What if the sites don't forbid those topics? It turns out they won't see their protections revoked. So nothing happens except we see the rise of 'free speech extremism' distributed darknet sites as the old centralized pozzed glownigger sites like 4 and 8 drop off the radar screen...

Oopsie!

What could go wrong?

Wrong, you aren't doing anything similar to publishing when posting on Twitter. Twitter is. You're merely writing/drawing/whatever the content.

The writer of a book doesn't publish it, either, he gets someone else to copy and distribute it, which is what Twitter does on millions of screens.

Xxxddd

>That implies that the KKK could go to any black-owned business, threaten the storeowner with death or worse if he doesn't leave town, and only be fined for trespassing because the government didn't violate anyone's rights.
This is the kind of stuff people did back when society accepted it. Ever hear of "sundown towns"? It used to be illegal for blacks to be out in public after a certain time (even though threatening someone's life was always illegal). Ever hear of "sundown towns"?

>That's not how rights work.
Of course it is. The Government can't stop the other group, that's censorship. If the other group is louder, has more people, and can legally drown your speech out, they have every right to do so. You can say it's in bad faith, but it's still them expressing themselves freely by shutting you down.

Hiroyuki is an actor, Jow Forums is owned by Google you retarded newfag.

>Wrong, you aren't doing anything similar to publishing when posting on Twitter. Twitter is. You're merely writing/drawing/whatever the content.
Not regarding Twitter, but regarding doubleschan.

Twitter is a separate argument.

Good riddance. Let the dregs go back to obscurity. Even people on Jow Forums are sick of Jow Forumstards shitting up every board.

>This is the kind of stuff people did back when society accepted it. Ever hear of "sundown towns"? It used to be illegal for blacks to be out in public after a certain time (even though threatening someone's life was always illegal). Ever hear of "sundown towns"?
Yes, and it was a violation of their rights back then too. How hard is that to understand?

The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights which the government is not allowed to interfere with; it's also a non-exhaustive list of rights which the government is bound to protect.

>Remember the Travel Ban? All it takes is one lower court to say this law is unconstitutional, and it'll be put on hold until the Supreme Court rightly rules it's unconstitutional.
I see you're confused, the SCOTUS ruled that was rightfully constitutional.
They've taken millions of dollars in the forms of grants, what are you talking about? >washingtonexaminer.com/the-reason-the-us-government-is-investing-huge-money-in-social-media
Also, you do understand that Twitter and Facebook have special protections that a book or newsletter publisher don't right? They aren't comparable.

>So Hiroyuki is a multi-billion dollar corporation?
We're not talking about Jow Forums, we're talking about platforms that actually matter like Google and Facebook.

looks like all the libtard sites are gearing up to spread a false narrative about the order to prevent social media companies from influencing elections and censoring their political opposition. based trump. hes really gonna do it.

>I see you're confused, the SCOTUS ruled that was rightfully constitutional.
You're missing the point. It only takes one lower circuit judge to rule an executive order unconstitutional. In this case SOCTUS would almost certainly rule against the order in the OP's article.

This, theres no downside for conservatives since we’ve been getting fucked anyway

I'm not arguing for or against Trump's EO. I'm saying that there's very little reason for Twitter, Google, and Facebook to enjoy the special protections they enjoy if they're going to act as publisher's while also pretending to be a platform. SCOTUS has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas." If these mega-corporations in charge of the majority of online communications wish to censor opinions they don't like they need to be forced to act as publishers and lose their special protections.

Factually incorrect. First of all there is no shadow govt in SF - i assume that you mean Facebook, Twitter etc..but those are lovable private companies that conservatives seem to love so much..There is a huge difference between a private company having rules and the govt ( now there is a necessary discussion on the role of the public space online etc...but that's something different). It isn't censorship when YouTube makes a policy saying "no porn " or when PornHub makes one saying "only porn, don't clog up our site with boring documentaries on cheese making ".

This victimization complex needs to stop.

There's no grants on this list for Twitter.

This exactly. It's critical for the runup to 2020, that expert they had in front of Congress recently said Google manipulated 20% of the voting public. BTW the same shit should apply to newspapers who only publish opinions and letters to the editor which agree with the paper's editorial slant, or papers who publish (say) paid Chinese government disinformation as 'crops info' articles without any hint that they are paid promotions.

Twitter stock shoah on Monday. I'd buy tech stock inverse ultra velocity shares.

does this mean its the rights turn for free speech? all we've had for the past 5+ years is tranny fags banning people

Hmm, so you agree there's no tax dollars claim for regulating Twitter.

>The draft order would put the FTC and the FCC, headed by its notoriously corrupt chairman Ajit Pai, in charge of monitoring and policing online speech on social media platforms, online forums, and more.
OH NONONO NOOOOOOO!

Attached: ajit-pai-video.jpg (820x547, 50K)

Can you give me a source that's not a liberal propaganda site?

So much for small government.

Republicans want to get rid of free speech while Democrats want to protect it? Wow, the tables have really turned.