Comments by "madd hatter" (@maddhatter3564) on "'You Left Out... Three Key Words': Brett Kavanaugh Questions Florida Lawyer About 1st Amendment" video.

  1. they want 230 protection but also editorial control.
    2
  2.  @martinleuchs5403  yet they enjoy section 230 protections that most private entities dont. seems like they want to be a gov protected entity when it serves them but just a private organization when it doesnt.
    2
  3.  @mrsleep0000  All gun control laws. BAM.
    1
  4. having section 230 protection makes internet a utility therefore makes it a defacto gov agency which must abide by the 1st amendment. Ask the internet companies if they want to give up section 230 protections, THEN they would not be covered by 1A
    1
  5.  @jonathanccast  doesnt matter when they censor. yopur arguement is insane.
    1
  6.  @WblutSundAehre  many of my posts dissapear that are far from violating the law. Many were yanked because i dont trust the J@A&B
    1
  7. Also internet entities have special protections that private business's dont have (section 230). Like with all legal monopolies , protections come with rules, rules like the 1A
    1
  8.  @vbscript2  i didnt say it WAS a monopoly, only that as with monopolys, there are certain things you have to give up to get special protections.
    1
  9.  @vbscript2  Im not a platform, so your argument is faulty. these companies want to be producers when it serves them but just a community billboard when THAT serves them.they shouldnt have any more protections than , say NYT
    1
  10. as per section 230 they are Utilities. Utilities have to function under same rules as any gov agency.
    1