Twitter and child pornography
A federal judge ruled Twitter is immune from liability on all but one of two boys’ claims stemming from the posting of sexually explicit videos made of them when they were 13 years old. The Communications Decency Act shields the social media platform from liability on all counts except on their claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act that Twitter knowingly benefited from the posting of child pornography.
I gotta say, this makes total sense to me. Why? Because the legislators designed this flawed system intentionally just as they designed the horribly flawed criminal laws in the federal system.
What’s interesting to me is that if I had those child porn videos on my phone or computer, I go to prison. Apparently, Twitter had them on their servers for years and made them available to the public, yet got away with it. Wonder if any prosecutors have looked into it. Shows how much power corporations have. They control how the laws are written, and they buy influence through huge campaign contributions.
It’s not just corporations. Bill Cosby got off on a technicality, and I don’t blame him for it. He did what he did for years and almost no repercussions. If that were anyone not famous or rich he would not have gotten the chance to get out. My charge is 15 plus years old and I can’t pass background checks. But if you got money you are done
Bill Cosby did not get off on a “technicality”. This is the false narrative that the prosecutor and criminal justice lobby parrot, and I’m disappointed to see it here.
The prosecutor cut a deal with Cosby and the victim, agreeing to drop the charges in exchange for restitution for the victim. It was an actual moment of restorative, non punitive justice. everyone was happy. Then a new prosecutor gets into office and tries to go back on the deal and try Cosby AGAIN for what they already dropped in exchange for concessions from Cosby. This was effectively betraying a plea agreement. If Cosby got off, it would mean that prosecutors could go back on their agreements and promises whenever they felt like it, adding to the already absurdly massive and hypocritical shield from accountability that they currently possess. Of course, our cowardly justices who have no interest in preserving whatever is left of our civil rights and are mostly ex-prosecutors themselves don’t have a problem with this, but what it would do is destroy the practical good-faith relationship between prosecutors and defense attorneys. 95% of cases are resolved with a plea bargain. If defendants refused to bargain because prosecutors were no longer accountable to their deals, the system would collapse. That is why they had to release Cosby for double jeopardy.
In short, he already paid the sentence that was negotiated. The prosecutor, in typical corrupt pig glory-seeking prosecutor fashion, wanted him to pay twice.
Dear KLM, thanks for pointing this out. You’re 100% correct about what truly happened, as far as my own research has shown. You beat me to posting the truth about what happened. Great job with your research and post!
@KLM
Good job illustrating the hypocrisy and ethical breaches that exist in our criminal justice system. I didn’t research the Cosby situation and appreciate the education. Prosecutors swear to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, but all their incentives are to win at any cost. It is not surprising that they push the ethical envelope. They are rarely reprimanded in their offices, have not just qualified immunity but absolute immunity, and judges are not even allowed visibility into the plea bargain sausage making. Given all this, they operate with absolute impunity. Nice to see them called to task in a high profile case.
Veritas.
This is not news. Section 230 says websites are not liable for the content their users post on their platform. If we had no section 230, every post on every site would have to be screened by a human, and they’d err on the side of avoiding liability, and whatever bastions of free speech that are left on the internet would be destroyed.
I don’t know much about section 230, but as for your remarks about not having it would allow every post to be “screened” and therefore hamper our free speech, would you mind explaining how conservatives are being shadow banned (look it up for details on what that means) as well as out-right banned for having a difference of opinion than liberals?
All of these social media sites lean to the left. They are not even independent. They lean LEFT. Period. And if a leftist calls someone names, bullies or harasses people, they are ignored by the techies. The moment a conservative or independent replies and gives the liberal a taste of their own medicine – instant ban!
I’ve been put on Facebook “time out” for days on end for arguing with liberals about politics. I was fully banned from Twitter for the same. But as I sift through the comments, nothing is done about “F**k Trump” and saying that conservatives should all die. So I’m not sure where your idea of section 230 stopping this from happening comes from. They DO scan posts. How else do you account for “Fact Checkers” (who get it wrong multiple times) and those stupid “covid” notices that appear even on the bottom of posts from conservatives that have NOTHING TO DO with covid?
And yes, Twitter SHOULD be held accountable because the victim contacted them and explained the situation with the photo. Twitter turned their backs on the victim. That right there should have Jack Dorsey in a courtroom ASAP!
@Maestro
Can we please keep politics out of these discussions? The subject is totally irrelevant to FAC’s purpose and could start a fight. Perhaps FAC should screen political speech (tongue in cheek).
Veritas.
Just wrote about this in the weekly update. We will do a better job of screening.
My comment was intended as irony. I wasn’t really asking for censorship. Any such policy is entirely up to FAC.
Politics has no relevance to this topic. The ruling’s from a life appointee. He does not have to stand for re-election.
Once in awhile my posts here don’t get published. I’m fine with that. I don’t own this platform. There are forum rules that help keep this movement focused, and they are clear, even if I occasionally forget them. If really feel strongly about a post that FAC won’t publish for me, I can just post it elsewhere. Not a problem. All FAC volunteers deserve our thanks, including those who devote their time to forum moderation.
Child pornography content is neither liberal nor conservative (I hope). That’s the only Twitter content at issue in this case.
Please remember that politics is a major way in which people interact with each other. It is not just Republicans and Democrats. Policies, programs, and restrictions all are part of politics. The stop sign or speed limit sign is a result of some political action. If we try to exclude politics in this equation of life nothing will ever be solved. Hiding one’s head in the sand will solve nothing. We still have to live with the results of political action.
I do not use Twitter. It is too time consuming and unfortunately there is only 24 hours in the day and I am already finding that that is not enough.
Hi Captain. Great article that you wrote on NARSOL.ORG. Shouldn’t we use law-enforcement money to fight actual crime? Good job!
On a complete tangent (but in regards to CP) I just read a story about a 74-year-old man in Volusia being sentenced to 20 years for possession. Not production, not distribution .. not even “receipt of” (that squirrelly charge). Just possession.
I’m sure the images he possessed are sickening, and there seems little doubt of his guilt (arrest report says he asked his wife’s forgiveness as he was taken away). But what a shame that instead of a reasonable sentence and some hope of treatment to rehabilitate this senior, he will be locked away in Florida’s system and will very likely die behind bars. It was also my impression that he had no prior record or convictions for anything of this nature.
Again, CP possession is very wrong and there is no justifying or defending it. But our system continues to be cruelly punitive without offering even a hope of redemption to someone like this elderly man.
It’s all politics one way or another. Politics put in to place the opportunities that exist to violate the Constitution or to support the Constitution. Politics puts the judge on the bench and politics makes the laws.
FAC moderators shouldn’t be babysitters when it comes to comments. When having discussions on the registry, restrictions, upcoming bills, and laws it’s an emotional issue that includes history and sometimes political views. We can disagree and those disagreements shouldn’t cause fights between people. I’ve committed things that could of been seen as controversial, however that never has been my intention. It’s important to see all sides of an issue even if you disagree or if it offensive. Always remember how many people come to advocate forums see bickering and say the heck with this. That’s my two cents and you are free to disagree.
It’s not just Twitter. This has been going on for decades without anything being done to stop it. For example,
‘Nevermind’ Album Cover ‘Baby’ Sues Nirvana for Child Pornography https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2021/08/25/nevermind-album-cover-baby-sue-nirvana-for-child-pornography/