07-02-2020, 12:43 AM
(07-01-2020, 09:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's no confusion and I am aware of what the PLCAA is (if I wasn't then I would have googled searched it). You didn't answer my question though, what do you think of firearms manufacturer's having qualified immunity from lawsuits based on the misuse of their product?
Well, yeah, there was some confusion. You never asked if I favored gunmakers having immunity. In these situations I find it is always a good idea to use the quote function instead of paraphrasing.
Here is what really happened.
First I gave an opinion on the claim that internet providers protection from liability was dependent on political neutrality.
(06-29-2020, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't make a law that has zero to do with political neutrality (47 USC 230) and then try to claim it is somehow based on political neutrality. Protecting internet providers against liability for false or dangerous information shared on their platform has nothing to do with political neutrality.
Notice that I never said if I was in favor of them having the protection or not. Then you quoted my post and replied.
(06-29-2020, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wonder if you have the same opinion of the law banning lawsuits against fire arms manufacturers when someone uses one of their firearms to kill someone illegally?
And the answer was "Yes". I did have the same opinion about the protection being based on political neutrality
(06-30-2020, 10:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am lost here. When has anyone said the PLCAA only applies if a company is politically neutral? Are these "many people" also trying to remove protection under the PLCAA for any company that is not politically neutral?
Understand now?
(07-01-2020, 09:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I ask because many on the left want to eliminate this. I thought the parallel was interesting given the right's concern about social media platforms. I don't recall a Dem every calling for the repeal of this immunity for the gun industry based on the shooter's political stance. Hence, you did not answer my question.
I have seen this argument before and it is a classic "false equivelancy".
There are arguments I could make about gunmakers' rights to protection from liability, but I would NEVER say their protection depended on them being politically neutral. This whole argument is just an attempt to muddy the waters with something that has nothinbg to do with the President's claim that the protection provided to internet platform providers is dependent on political neutrality.
