Connect with us

Politics

Should SCOTUS Dismiss The Consequential Section 230 Case, Gonzales v. Google?

Published

on

Oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google will take place on Tuesday. Nearly 30 years after its enactment, the Supreme Court will finally consider Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which sets forth the basic liability regime for the internet. The Gonzalez plaintiffs are families of slain victims of the Paris, Istanbul, and San Bernardino terrorist attacks. They claim that YouTube’s targeted video recommendations motivated the terrorists who murdered their loved ones. 

Section 230(c)(1), mirroring traditional liability rules for telegraphs and telephones, protects internet platforms from liability caused by their users’ statements. It simply states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service [e.g., Google] shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by” another user. If you libel your friend on Facebook, Section 230(c)(1) protects Facebook, limiting your friend’s legal recourse to suing you, but if Facebook wrongs a user with its own speech or action, Section 230(c)(1) does not apply.  

In this suit, the question is whether algorithmically generated targeted recommendations should be considered “information provided by another” or the platform’s own speech. If targeted recommendations are considered YouTube’s speech, then Section 230(c)(1) provides no legal protection from this suit; if the recommendations are information provided by another, then Section 230(c)(1) offers protection. Google argues its recommendations are merely algorithmically reorganized speech of its users.

But this suit raises a more fundamental question. Because Gonzalez is the first time the court will examine Section 230(c)(1), the court may rule on how broadly that

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Georgia State Election Board Approves Rule Seeking To Ensure Accurate Ballot Counts

Published

on

The Georgia State Election Board (SEB) approved a rule on Friday that aims to ensure the number of physical ballots counted matches the machine count at the precinct level.

The board approved Rule 183-1-12-.12 (a) (5), which states the poll manager and two witnesses shall, after removing the “paper ballots from each ballot box, record the date and time that the ballot box was emptied and present to three sworn precinct poll officers to independently count the total number of ballots removed from the scanner, sorting into stacks of 50 ballots continuing until all of the ballots have been counted separately by each of the three poll officers.”

But if the three poll officers find that “the numbers recorded on the precinct poll pads, ballot marking devices [BMDs] and scanner recap forms do not reconcile with the hand count ballot totals, the poll manager shall immediately determine the reason for the inconsistency; correct the inconsistency, if possible; and fully document the inconsistency or problem along with any corrective measures taken.”

A handful of Georgia counties already use hand counting at the precinct level, as SEB member Janelle King noted in Friday’s meeting. She argued that, by approving Rule 183-1-12-.12 (a) (5), the board would simply be creating uniform guidance across the state.

“I just want to point out that according to our Georgia code, the role of the [SEB], part of our role, is to ‘promulgate rules and regulations to define uniform and nondiscriminatory standards,’” King said, reading from what

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Calls Grow For Nebraska Republicans To Adopt Winner-Take-All System Before 2024 Election

Published

on

In a move that could help Donald Trump’s prospects of winning the White House, Nebraska’s GOP leadership is calling on state lawmakers to switch to a winner-take-all system for awarding Electoral College votes before Election Day.

On Wednesday, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen met with two dozen state senators and Secretary of State Bob Evnen at his official residence to encourage the GOP-controlled legislature to pass a law allocating the Cornhusker State’s five Electoral College votes to whichever presidential candidate receives the most votes statewide. South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham also reportedly attended the meeting, according to the left-wing Nebraska Examiner.

Nebraska is one of two states (the other being Maine) that splits its Electoral College votes. As explained by the National Archives, these states “appoint individual electors based on the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional district and then 2 ‘at-large’ electors based on the winner of the overall state-wide popular vote.”

During the 2020 election, Joe Biden garnered a single electoral vote by winning Nebraska’s 2nd District. The reverse happened in Maine, where Trump won the state’s 2nd District and accompanying electoral vote.

As my colleague Brianna Lyman previously explained, the fate of which candidate wins the presidential election could hinge on who comes out on top in Nebraska’s 2nd District. If Kamala Harris “were to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin but lose Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona, for example, [she] could still reach 270 — so long as [she] received one of Nebraska’s electoral

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Amber Thurman Died From The Abortion Pill, Not Pro-Life Laws

Published

on

Democrats and their corporate media allies are so desperate to get rid of pro-life laws that they’ll fabricate stories to wrongly smear them as not only bad for women but deadly.

The latest is ProPublica’s story of a Georgia woman who died after a North Carolina abortionist gave her chemical abortion pills — which, contrary to Democrat narratives, are unsafe. The article, however, pretends the death was caused by Georgia’s pro-life laws. The author of the story repeatedly attempts to conflate a procedure used to treat miscarriages, dilation and curettage (D&C), with elective abortion.

In ProPublica’s telling, 28-year-old Amber Nicole Thurman had ingested the chemical abortion pill regimen, which consists of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone ends the life of the developing human being; misoprostol helps achieve complete expulsion of the embryo.

It’s worth noting that the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone acknowledged its risks and enacted safety requirements, including a seven-week gestational limit, requiring women to see a physician in person, and a mandatory one-time post-abortion appointment to confirm that the uterus was empty and that bleeding had subsided. The FDA also required manufacturers of the abortion pill to report all adverse health events that were reported to them, such as infection or excessive bleeding — not just patient deaths. 

But thanks to Democrat efforts to relax safety requirements for abortion pills, important safeguards no longer apply. When Thurman experienced “complications” from the abortion, which ProPublica wrongly asserts are “rare,” she went to the hospital for a

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending