Ohio Court Rules Google May Be Designated
a Common Carrier
Breitbart,
by
Allum Bokhari
Original Article
Posted By: Beardo,
5/27/2022 10:21:34 AM
A court in Ohio has ruled that a lawsuit from state Attorney General Dave Yost, which labels Google a common carrier subject to special regulations and litigation, can proceed, a significant development for Republicans seeking to hold tech companies accountable for bias and censorship.
Under U.S. law, common carriers are subject to strict regulations about who they can and cannot deny service to. Along with businesses categorized as public accommodations, they are expected to provide service to all paying customers on a non-discriminatory basis. Examples of common carriers in the U.S. include utilities and telecommunications companies.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
MDConservative 5/27/2022 10:44:19 AM (No. 1167597)
This is a case of be careful what you wish for...
It's hard to make an argument that these platforms "control the modern-day public square" with thousands of other opinion outlets, including this salon. There is easy entry into the "public square" - a computer, a 'net connection, and an idea. Count the sources that pop up here each day alone. And how many opinions are shared? And that ignores such as newspapers, television, radio and other outlets of opinion that reach more people than Twitter or Facebook. Are these now "common carrriers"? Why not? Try buying a broadcast facility...demand air time for yourself...
I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It. I will also defend the right of publishers/carriers to "censor" or edit content for whatever reason. It's their pulpit. Kinda like the right of a baker refusing to make a cake for a wedding.
1 person likes this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 5/27/2022 11:40:28 AM (No. 1167674)
#1, this I believe is more significant than that, It goes back to that law passed in the Obama years about net neutrality. The arguments were all about the carriers putting lower priority on some heavy users in times of high demand. But part of that law also put carriers like Google and Twitter in a special legally priveleged position.
They were arguing about this very issue, is Google a carrier or a Publisher. If a carrier then they had to be very careful what they censored because they were more like a public utility. If they were a publisher than they could censor however they wished.
The problem arises when you actually look at the content. A carrier, who must allow any user to post, cannot simulataneously be strictly held responsible for that content. A Publisher, which controls content can be held acountable for that content. In short a carrier cannot be sued for libel, but a Publisher can.
What that law did was give these platforms all the priveleges of a carrier but none of the liabilities of a publisher all the while allowing them to act as a publisher by deciding what was and was not "true" on their platforms.
That needs to be changed. If they censor they must be held responsible for what they allow to be posted on their site. Want to censor The American Nazi Party Fine, but you will also be responsible then for allowing ISIS to recruit on your published pages. They cannot continue to be allowed to behave as a Publisher while enjoying the protections of being a carrier.
15 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
sw penn 5/27/2022 12:04:44 PM (No. 1167698)
The problem with argument like the one #1 has presented
is the until Big Tech, there has never been a category
"publishers/carriers".
An entity was either a "publisher", or a "carrier".
The category "publishers/carriers" does not, technically, exist now.
But, Big Tech is acting as though it does.
The category "publishers/carriers" is an attempt by fascist elements
in government and business to establish a norm of controlling speech
that they cannot achieve by Constitutional means.
Government and business are suppose to be at each others throats.
Anything that throws sand in the gears of their machinations
is in the public (your) interest.
5 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
WV.Hillbilly 5/27/2022 12:36:08 PM (No. 1167722)
Long overdue.
Google has it's hooks in everything. There's virtually no web service that doesn't use Google in some form.
Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon all should be named as common carriers.
The telephone company cannot disconnect your service because they disagree with what you say.
4 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
MDConservative 5/27/2022 12:47:48 PM (No. 1167735)
#2 and 3 - The solution is easy for Google: Shut off search engine access to Ohioans. It's not essential to anyone. Other Google services would remain available. It's fully within the realm of a company's rights to cease doing such business within that jurisdiction. In the meantime, Google can fight the lawsuit, which smacks of political motivation.
0 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
GustoGrabber 5/27/2022 1:35:08 PM (No. 1167780)
The results to what you suggest might just open the door to antitrust actions which are probably the better way to reign in Google anyway.
0 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
JackBurton 5/27/2022 3:09:55 PM (No. 1167861)
I remember when restaurant owners felt it was their right to refuse service because the potential customer was black. That was ruled against. If you are a public conveyance or whatnot, you CANNOT
1 person likes this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
JackBurton 5/27/2022 3:11:00 PM (No. 1167862)
hit the wrong button...
You CANNOT 'discriminate'. Why isn't the same rule applied here?
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Beardo"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)