Author Topic: Plagiarism.  (Read 745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

summa logicae

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Respect: +66
« on: March 08, 2019, 04:25:26 PM »
Though this isn't technically plagiarism it is tangentially related. I was watching Molyneux's video on the Alex Jones banning some time ago and he began alluding to the Communications Decency Act without ever naming it : around 1:50. Nor does he leave a link in the description to the act itself. This is, of course, indicative of deception in his case. And he goes on to lie about the CDA and how it applies to online platforms saying that they cannot "exercise editorial control."

In the break down of the CDA given by the Digital Media Law Project which you can find here-- can clearly see that the act states "Courts have consistently held that exercising traditional editorial functions over user-submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, is immunized under Section 230."

Taken from the case of Google v. MyTriggers ( in which the CDA was cited: "The CDA offers two forms of protection to "interactive computer services" such as Google. First, under § 230(c)(1), the "interactive computer service" is deemed not to be the publisher or speaker of information provided by another party. Secondly, the CDA provides immunity to any "interactive computer service" which restricts access to content that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2). Google argues that the phrase "otherwise objectionable" contained within § 230(c)(2) must be read to include any type of editorial discretion Google uses when selecting which ads to include in its search results.

When a general term follows specific terms, courts presume that the general term is limited by the preceding terms. Begay v. United States (2008), 553 U.S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 1584. See also Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattell, Inc. (2008), 552 U.S. 576, 586, 128 S. Ct. 1396 (stating that under the canon of ejusdem generis, "when a statute sets out a series of specific items ending with a general term, that general term is confined to covering subjects comparable to the specifics it follows"). Similarly, under § 230(c)(2), "objectionable content must, at a minimum, involve or be similar to pornography, graphic violence, obscenity, or harassment." National Numismatic, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109793 at 82, (noting that Congress provided guidance on the term "objectionable" by including the list of examples in the statute).

In part, Google relies on Landon v. Google, (D. Del. 2007), 474 F. Supp.2d 622, to support its argument that the phrase "otherwise objectionable" is broad enough to immunize Google's decisions whether or not to publish specific ads. In Landon, the court found § 230(c)(2) immunity barred a claim against Google when Google decided not to include two particular ads in its search results; one alleging fraud against government officials and a second ad alleging various atrocities of the Chinese government. When discussing the Landon decision, the court in National Numismatic, supra, explained that "[a]lthough the [Landon] opinion contains some broad language concerning `immunity for * * * editorial decisions' and did not consider the canon of ejusdem generis, or the public policy behind section 230, the holding is entirely consistent with respect to this Court's reasoning to the extent that advocating `against a group' is similar to `harassment'." The court in National Numismatic, therefore, expressed the view that the ads in Landon did not fall within the more general phrase "otherwise objectionable", but were consistent with one of the more specific examples preceding "otherwise objectionable."

 Google, Twitter, can use "otherwise objectionable" as sufficient reason to censor in an unfair, unjust, or otherwise inequitable manner. And it will have to be left to the courts to change the language to specifically show how far editorializing can apply. In any case, the CDA as it stands now allows for editorializing, and Molyneux either conducted almost no research or deliberately lied.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 12:44:06 AM by summa logicae »