Today's Section 230 thread examines what is probably the biggest misconception about the law (and that's saying a lot): whether there is a distinction between "publishers" and "platforms." The short answer is no. The longer answer is No, absolutely not! I explain:

The argument goes like this: websites only receive Section 230 protections if they are "neutral platforms." If they begin to moderate/block/curate user content, they become "publishers" and lose their Section 230 protections. Because 230 only applies to "neutral platforms."

Before deconstructing why this argument is incorrect, it is important to note that we don't know exactly where it has come from. It really only surfaced in the public debate 1-2 yrs ago.

But many lawyers for platforms have been making this mistake since 230 was passed, and have advised their clients to not moderate, lest they lose 230 protections. I think this terrible advice has led to a lot of the garbage we're dealing with online today.

Here's why the "publisher/platform" distinction just isn't a thing under Section 230. A main reason that Congress passed 230 was in response to a badly reasoned 1995 NY state court opinion that found that Prodigy was liable for all of its users' posts because it moderated.

I'm still seeing a lot of concern about the Texas Supreme Court filing, which is understandable. From a certain angle, it looks imposing.

So here, in sum, is why there's no need for alarm (thread):

1) The case asks the Supreme Court to exercise "original jurisdiction," skipping lower courts. The Court rarely does this. The Court *can* exercise this jurisdiction in state v. state disputes, but doesn't have to.

It takes 5 justices to hear this case, rather than the usual 4.

2) Usually original jurisdiction applies to state v. state disputes over borders, etc. - for example when NJ and NY sued over control of Ellis Island (Jersey!).

The TX case is something else entirely and could have been heard in lower courts (many have rejected similar claims).

3) The heart of Texas's claim is that it objects to election procedures used in four other states. This is unconstitutional and would lead to utter insanity.

First, The Constitution specifically gives each state the right to run its elections as it sees fit. Done and done.

4) And to allow one state to sue over another state's processes would lead to absurd results. Any state could sue any other state over the election. NJ could sue Alabama, Alaska, Idaho. Arkansas could sue MA, NY, and CA. It would never end.

The Court won't countenance that.

11 December 2020 #MAGAanalysis #Overturn

The Theory Of The Case

I have much more to study from the "BRIEF OF STATE OF MISSOURI AND 16 OTHER STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF

Thread of useful links and phone numbers: Christmas is always a difficult time for many people. This one is liable to be a lot harder for so many more though, and for so many more reasons than many expect. 1/

Domestic violence always tends to rise over Christmas. With households being locked down for much of the year already it's likely that this year will be worse. @RefugeCharity's helpline is 0800 2000247, with further organisations detailed in the link.

Poverty is rising with many families hit by job losses and reduced pay. Food banks are going to play an even more essential role. If you need one, or have overbought for Christmas and can donate rather than waste, @TrussellTrust has a food bank locator.

Christmas has always been a tough time for many people, even before Covid. Sadly this has long been reflected in the increase in suicides over the period. The @samaritans are there to listen. Don't suffer on your own. Their number is 116 123.

2020 has been particularly hard on people's mental health, and loneliness over Christmas can exacerbate that. @MindCharity's infoline on 0300 123 3393 is there to help.

.
💥NO VELVET GLOVES 💥
👉This is a message for Georgians. Everyone else can just move on along. It doesn't concern you.

I am a 50+ year resident and voter of Georgia and I am
going to take off the velvet gloves. After reading the

Here we go. The Judge is rendering her decision on the "Cancelling Christmas" case.

Judge making important note that they are seeking an interlocutory order - a quick and temporary decision on the issues pending full consideration by the court at a later date.

Think of it as "let's put out the fires first before we sit down to talk about how this fire started."

Judge says first step of granting interlocutory order - whether there is a serious issue to be tried - is satisfied. Nothing strange here - judge's analysis on this is sound.

Judge addressing evidence presented by applicants in support of the claim that their Charter rights have been infringed. Lots of lawyer stuff but gist is this is trending towards accepting some of the evidence because we are dealing with burning houses here.

The situation in NSW is changing fast.

Case numbers are continuing to grow. There are still missing links in the chains of transmission, which suggests there'll be more cases out there that the authorities are yet to find.

Without mandatory masks and stay at home orders across Sydney, we do not have confidence that the situation remains safe.

That's why from 11:59pm tonight, the Greater Sydney area and the Central Coast will be designated a 'red zone'.

People who live in these areas or have visited since 11 December cannot enter our state.

Anyone from the red zone found trying to enter Victoria in breach of these orders will be subject to mandatory 14-day hotel quarantine.

For Victorians currently in Greater Sydney or on the Central Coast, you'll have until 11:59pm on Monday 21 December to return home.

You'll need to register for an exemption on the Service Victoria website and get tested within 24 hours of your return.

You'll then need to self-quarantine at home for 14 days from the date you were last in a red zone.

DHHS teams will be checking on people to make sure they have everything they need – and to make sure they're at home.

We need to recognize how remarkable this

Part of me, of course, wants to see this as mundane -- as the Supreme Court doing exactly what it _should_ have done, exactly what every non-quack legal expert said it would do. But it would be wrong to dismiss the fears of those who worried it would do the opposite.

/2

As someone who studies authoritarian politics for a living, I would encourage all of us who have the privilege of living in democracies to retain a healthy appreciation of institutions working the way they _should_.

/3

The argument that SCOTUS _would_ rule this way because it _should_ rule this way was always specious, in my view. Of course it should. But 106 GOP congressmen and 17 state attorneys general _should_ also have refrained from filing amicus briefs.

/4

The GOP and Trump _should_ have recognized defeat, even if they don't like it. Fox News _should_ not be giving a platform to lies about 'illegal' ballots. Shall I continue?

/5

Not been on here much past few months. Other things. But as approach close of tumultuous year I'm thinking of all those still - despite - doing amazing things in design, built environment, education, equity, place making, advocacy. Just some of those who inspire me. Thread:

Pooja Agrawal @AgrawalPooj Assistant Director Service Strategy Homes England. Architect, planner, co-founded social enterprise @PRACTICEPUBLIC co-hosts spatial equality platform Sound Advice. An inspiration. Thank you Pooja for all you are doing. So much admiration

1/ After a long wait, FinCEN has finally issued its new proposed rule extending AML regulation to non-custodial wallets.

It could've been worse (really), but it's still a terrible rule in both process & substance.

Here's what it says, what's wrong with it, & what we do next 👇

2/ The rule would impose new obligations on virtual asset service providers (VASPs) like exchanges & custodians.

For deposits & withdrawals > $3k involving a non-custodial wallet, VASPs would have to record the name & physical address of the wallet

3/ VASPs would also have to report any deposit or withdrawal > $10k to FinCEN in the form of a currency transaction report (CTR).

FinCEN says these requirements are necessary to "combat the financing of global terrorism," "address transnational money laundering...." You get it.

4/ Before now, the Travel Rule only imposed these record-keeping & reporting requirements on transactions from VASP-to-VASP.

Today's proposal follows a global trend of extending AML regulation to transactions from VASP-to-wallet, as we've seen from Switzerland, France, & others.

5/ Let's look on the bright side for a minute.

This doesn't require KYC for every transaction with a non-custodial wallet. It isn't an outright ban on self-custody. It doesn't prohibit the act of using a permissionless network.

It really -- REALLY -- could have been much worse.

Wondering whether Canada & BC might domesticate UNDRIP seems besides the point since UNDRIP itself explicitly recognizes the sovereignty of settler colonial states (above Native sovereignty) in Article 46. Article 27 recognizes colonial law as able to "adjudicate" Native rights.

Canada & BC (for the most part) have not even been parties to the many Treaties involving Indigenous peoples on these territories, let alone respected or adhered to them. Treaties are ostensibly international law, while UNDRIP is not.

Most of BC has no Treaties. BC is a rogue province that was formed in violation of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 & Duty of Disallowance of 1875. The modern BC "treaty" process was started in response to the many Native blockades in the 1980s & 90s (more than any other province.)

At the time of adopting UNDRIP last year, BC's Premier & Minister of Indigenous Relations publicly stated that First Nations would not have a "veto", that Native rights were the same as those "all peoples" have, & that Bill 41 doesn't give UNDRIP "legal force and effect."

BC's adoption of UNDRIP is not a conspiracy or trojan horse. It's conducted openly in collaboration with the settler corporate community. As the CEO of the First Nations LNG Alliance said, “I see UNDRIP creating more certainty. I’m hoping that investors hear this message."

1. It’s virtually impossible to appreciate the full ramification of the New Testament without recourse to the legal construct undergirding it. The New Testament is resolutely mounted on a tripod of commercial law, criminal law and constitutional law. #Illuminare

2. There are other legal dimensions but those are the major three. Without those legal authorities the New Testament will not be efficacious in heaven, on earth or under the earth. It will just be history. #Illuminare

3. That’s not to say only lawyers can appreciate the New Testament. It’s the Holy Spirit that unveils the word. But there’s a way and manner a Paul would read the scriptures that Peter can’t. #Illuminare

4. Paul had formal training in Mosaic law. His dean was Gamaliel. Acts 22:3. Peter on the other hand was an ordinary fisherman, and you can see the difference in their writings. #Illuminare

5. It’s like those first few verses in the book of Genesis. A cosmologist or quantum physicist would salivate over them. He has a technical grasp of the issues. #Illuminare

@BlrCityPolice @DCPEASTBCP @AddlCPEast We have filed a FIR and have taken Injunction order from the court. Yet the circle inspector (Vasan Kumar) of @Hennurps Is being numb on the situation

@DCPEASTBCP @AddlCPEast @Hennurps Property Video as on 25.11.2020 when we reached @Hennurps taking up the issue.

@DCPEASTBCP @AddlCPEast @Hennurps @Hennurps refused to file an FIR on the culprit and made us to take rounds of police station unnecessarily.

@DCPEASTBCP @AddlCPEast @Hennurps As no action was taken from the @Hennurps , the goon politician #HNHarish illegally demolished the site on 4 December 2020

@DCPEASTBCP @AddlCPEast @Hennurps Once the site was illegally demolished by the goon. Police were ready to file an FIR. And we were given FIR on 5 December 2020 #Bengaluru