>>1538603

At this particular stage we don't have to "amend" the constitution, as an internet bill would be, generally speaking, global (if the rights only applied to America, it would defeat the point of it being a bill for the internet).

As someone outside America, I have a very strong interest in ensuring IBOR succeeds globally, because it's the kind of protections myself and others cannot presently enjoy (police arresting people for making twitter bomb jokes whilst allowing pedophiles to go scot-free in Rotherham is the biggest fucking outrage in a century and not a single complaint from anyone anywhere).

If enough countries adopt or ratify IBOR (I'm hoping EU gets on board because once they adopt it, it will force pretty much everyone else to do so as well), it would become de facto.

It might not be in the constitution, but I think IBOR reinforces the American constitution nicely (both support freedom of speech, and I bet a judge would argue freedom of speech on the internet is hypothetically covered by said pre-existing constitution).

Adding it to the constitution might not be possible, but if we could shore it up to be difficult to assail as Section 230 was and have it unilaterally enforced by other countries (so it 'overlaps'), not only would this allow freedom of speech for individuals like myself, but also for those in countries who have no voice to start speaking out.

Otherwise, one of your major issues is companies will move overseas in order to avoid complying with IBOR, like they already do with GDPR for countries outside the EU.

>>1539559

If your idea is to 'trojan horse' the fact Trump blocked people on twitter in order to force the hypocrisy of Twitter's own blocking/banning, it's hypothetically possible.

But the coverage would be extremely narrow (and I imagine the crooked judge would apply double-standards).

Firstly, it would only apply to 'public' accounts (EG politicians).

Secondly, it would only apply to Americans (a point skipped by the judge conveniently in the rulings; the Twitter block lifts would only apply to Americans who have a right to freedom of speech in their own country - it does not expand to other citizens in other countries, however the judge omitted that key detail to maliciously insinuate Trump had to unban everyone).

Furthermore, it likely wouldn't apply to illegal content (the judge again skips whether or not Trump could block someone who just spams child porn or offers of illegal activities etc).

That said, the judge does mandate that if Trump cannot block users from public forums… neither can Twitter.

If Trump or a shadowbanned user not allowed to post on another politician's account (strongly recommend another politician), in theory, Twitter are obliged to let them post in a public domain.

Otherwise, if they use private v public as an argument, I'd call bullshit, because the Trump account is already private.

Either way, the ruling is very inconsistent to the kind of abusive practices otherwise allowed by Twitter, Facebook etc.

I hope that hypocrisy gets exposed further and triggers outrage.

My personal opinion are ALL social media outlets are effectively PUBLIC utilities. Imagine if a corporation owned all of the roads, but banned some people driving on it based on their views or religious beliefs. The roads are public utilities, but it's owned privately.

My thoughts are anything that is a 'public utility' (to the degree it is practically 'depended upon') trumps any 'privately owned' arguments. Otherwise you allow water companies to cut off your water if they don't like who you are or what you say (if they cut you off for being critical of them, there'd be an outrage).