'Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.' Bruce this is the time! The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is an agency of the Department of Commerce. 'It serves as the President's principal adviser on telecommunic…
'Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.' Bruce this is the time! The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is an agency of the Department of Commerce. 'It serves as the President's principal adviser on telecommunications policies pertaining to the United States' economic and technological advancement and to regulation of the telecommunications industry.' (Wiki) I do not know if the Department of Commerce could be the trigger. Last October, 2020, the 'landmark internet law — Section 230 — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their platforms' was to be addressed. 'Both Democrats and Republicans have been calling for years to reform this law, arguing that it is outdated considering how large and powerful these tech giants have become. That’s why the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to face questioning.' (Vox, Oct 28, 2020). Bruce, please note that both parties have wanted to reform this law for years and still have not. There is a law, so where's the way?
I do not disagree with the need to reform this law. It is a difficult and thorny problem however due to the problem I have already alluded to regarding the anonymity afforded to those who speak on these platforms. It should be remembered that the speech and particularly the disinformation promoted objected to by so many is not the speech of the platform but rather those who speak on the platform. Would you sue the owner of a stage or theatre for the speech of someone who rents the theatre and its stage? It is a different matter when it is a newspaper or other media where it is the speech of the media or journal owner. The problem with social media is the anonymity and false personas of the speakers making it impossible to identify who is responsible. Let everyone who wishes to speak on those platforms be required to both identify and authenticate themselves and allow for those real identities to be disclosed and held responsible for their speech. I am all for that. They can still be free under the first amendment to speak falsehoods and misinformation, the first amendment does not prevent that. But at least we can hold them accountable for their speech. And, if in fact, they do render slander or libel, incite or threaten violence, they can be held accountable for that as well.
In saying this is not the time or place for this discussion, I was referring only to Dr. Richardson's wonderful forum, which I am loath to monopolize to discuss a topic she did not bring up. Her own thoughts and words are far more important than mine.
Bruce, I will address a serious example of this in comment tomorrow or early next week. Your discussion of this big problem with other subscribers was of great interest to me. There will be more. Thank you.
'Unfortunately, perhaps in the U.S. we do not have any laws preventing hate speech. But that is a discussion for another time and place.' Bruce this is the time! The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is an agency of the Department of Commerce. 'It serves as the President's principal adviser on telecommunications policies pertaining to the United States' economic and technological advancement and to regulation of the telecommunications industry.' (Wiki) I do not know if the Department of Commerce could be the trigger. Last October, 2020, the 'landmark internet law — Section 230 — which shields tech companies from being sued for content users post on their platforms' was to be addressed. 'Both Democrats and Republicans have been calling for years to reform this law, arguing that it is outdated considering how large and powerful these tech giants have become. That’s why the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to face questioning.' (Vox, Oct 28, 2020). Bruce, please note that both parties have wanted to reform this law for years and still have not. There is a law, so where's the way?
I do not disagree with the need to reform this law. It is a difficult and thorny problem however due to the problem I have already alluded to regarding the anonymity afforded to those who speak on these platforms. It should be remembered that the speech and particularly the disinformation promoted objected to by so many is not the speech of the platform but rather those who speak on the platform. Would you sue the owner of a stage or theatre for the speech of someone who rents the theatre and its stage? It is a different matter when it is a newspaper or other media where it is the speech of the media or journal owner. The problem with social media is the anonymity and false personas of the speakers making it impossible to identify who is responsible. Let everyone who wishes to speak on those platforms be required to both identify and authenticate themselves and allow for those real identities to be disclosed and held responsible for their speech. I am all for that. They can still be free under the first amendment to speak falsehoods and misinformation, the first amendment does not prevent that. But at least we can hold them accountable for their speech. And, if in fact, they do render slander or libel, incite or threaten violence, they can be held accountable for that as well.
In saying this is not the time or place for this discussion, I was referring only to Dr. Richardson's wonderful forum, which I am loath to monopolize to discuss a topic she did not bring up. Her own thoughts and words are far more important than mine.
Bruce, I will address a serious example of this in comment tomorrow or early next week. Your discussion of this big problem with other subscribers was of great interest to me. There will be more. Thank you.