Congress Decides To Ignore Trump's Ridiculous Veto Threat If Military Authorization Doesn't Wipe Out Section 230
from the good-for-them dept
This always seemed like the the most likely outcome, but Trump had complicated things with his temper tantrum demands and his threat to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if it didn’t include a clause wiping out Section 230. However, Congress has come to its senses and leaders of both parties have said they’ll ignore his impotent veto threat and move forward with the bill as is.
The final version of the National Defense Authorization Act that will soon be considered by the House and Senate won?t include Trump?s long-sought repeal of the legal immunity for online companies, known as Section 230, according to lawmakers and aides.
Key to this was Senate Armed Services Chair Jim Inhofe pointing out the obvious:
“First of all 230 has nothing to do with the military.”
That’s both first of all and last of all. The whole attempt to use the NDAA to attack CDA 230 was just bizarre.
Inhofe did say he still thinks that 230 should go, but not as a part of the NDAA. A few other Republicans are finally speaking up as well.
Still, Republicans on Wednesday showed some signs of exasperation with the president?s latest effort. As one GOP lawmaker put it: ?Republicans are sick of this shit.?
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, put it more delicately. While he said he understood the president?s frustrations with Section 230, it was not worth imperiling the broader defense bill.
?The NDAA is so important to the men and women that wear the uniform that this should not be an item to veto the act over,? he said. ?So I would hope he would reconsider his position on it.?
And Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said his ?preference? would be to pass the NDAA and then address Section 230 separately.
Democratic critics of Section 230 were equally as annoyed. Remember, Senator Richard Blumenthal has been one of the most vocal critics of Section 230 going back to the time before he was a Senator and when he was stymied in trying to sue Craigslist by Section 230 (he was upset that sex workers use Craigslist, and wanted to blame Craigslist for the fact that sex workers exist).
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a co-sponsor of the only bipartisan bill targeting Section 230 to advance out of committee this Congress, called the veto threat “deeply dangerous and just plain stupid.?
He added, ?Reforming Section 230 deserves its own debate ? one that I?ve helped lead in Congress, and which I look forward to continuing with a more serious, thoughtful administration in January.?
In another article, Rep. Frank Pallone stated the obvious:
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone said in a statement that Trump is “holding a critical defense bill hostage in a petulant attempt to punish Twitter for fact-checking him. Our military and national security should not suffer just because Trump’s ego was bruised.”
There is still plenty of appetite to attack Section 230. And there will be lots of dumb fights about it, but it’s not going down this way.
Filed Under: congress, donald trump, ndaa, section 230, threat, veto
Comments on “Congress Decides To Ignore Trump's Ridiculous Veto Threat If Military Authorization Doesn't Wipe Out Section 230”
Wow. Republican lawmakers actually stood up to Trump in some small way.
Maybe they’ll find the rest of their testicular fortitude and tell him to concede the election.
Re: Re:
Occam’s Razor suggests it’s because they’ll pay no penalty in the lame duck period.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the man has been utterly defeated and humiliated, and will have no power in a few short weeks – but they will still have jobs. They no longer need to play along, and it would in fact cause them problems in the future if they were to do so.
lets wait until they actually override his veto to celebrate
Re: Re:
There is no way they want to be seen as doing anything against "the men and women that wear the uniform", even though thier pay is so minuscule in relation to the size of the NDAA as to be laughable. They really don’t want to piss off the military-industrial complex, plus they like their scary weapons and military adventurism in "protecting US interests".
"Republicans are sick of this shit."
The rest of us were sick of it in 2017.
Re: "Republicans are sick of this shit."
It’s not that they’re sick of it. It’s more that they’ve realized Trump’s usefulness as a figurehead has been well and truly exhausted.
Re: "Republicans are sick of this shit."
Some of us were throwing up in our mouths almost as soon as he hit the campaign trail during the Republican primaries!
Re: Re: "Republicans are sick of this shit."
Some people were going "we know he’s an idiot incompetent con artist from what he did in the 80s, why the hell are people listening to him now?"
Re: Re: Re: "Republicans are sick of this shit."
George Carlin said it best:
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that."
This pretty well sums up how Trump got 47% of the vote.
Re: Re: Re:2 "Republicans are sick of this shit."
Sadly, stupidity is only half the answer. There’s something of a cruel undercurrent where some people don’t care that they’re damaging themselves, they just want to hurt another group in the process.
Plus there’s the old adage about poor Americans considering themselves temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than the actual underclass, so will demand the rich be protected until they finally manage to join their ranks. That’s greed rather than stupidity, and something not easily fixed by simple education.
Re: Re: Re: "Republicans are sick of this shit."
Note that a fairly large portion of the population of the USA doesn’t hang on every word said and deed done by those who live in New York City, so quite a lot of people knew DJTrump only from his TV program (though they didn’t know him to be the person Noel Casler tells us about these days). They may also have read one or more of his ghost-written books. So I wonder why more angry New York City-zens, in pretty much the world capital of news and entertainment, didn’t speak up and spread real, useful information about the man. All the books coming out now are fun but… late.
Re: Re: Re:2 "Republicans are sick of this shit."
Being aware of current events is not the same as " hang on every word said and deed done ".
Re: Re: Re:2 "Republicans are sick of this shit."
There was plenty of real, useful information about Trump in 2016. It just didn’t get played on Fox News.
Re: "Republicans are sick of this shit."
And exasperated protests like that might actually have meaning if they weren’t being made by the people who actively helped perpetuate all this shit in the first place.
Re: Re: "Republicans are sick of this shit."
Might also have more meaning if they were saying things like that openly and with name attached, instead of "as one GOP lawmaker put it."
"the men and women that wear the uniform"
Yeah, speaking of which, are they yet getting proper body armor? Or necessary medical care for TBIs? When I was working with veterans, these were ongoing gripes from those close to the front line of the war on terror.
Re: "the men and women that wear the uniform"
There’s always this. Apparently we need charitable organizations to try and help veterans.
Re: Re: "the men and women that wear the uniform"
Sorta like the healthcare system, go crowd fund or die.
Re: Re: "the men and women that wear the uniform"
Too bad our military budget goes to the CEO salaries of corporate mercenary profiteers rather than to where it needs to go.
Has Mitch McConnell said anything yet? Because he’s the one who matters.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Hashtag
FakeNews!
Fake news, no Republican will risk being fired by Trump!
Re: Hashtag
I’m not even an American and I know that El Presidente cannot fire members of Congress!
The joy of politics, when you are in favour everyone is behind you 100% but when your card is marked, watch how quickly they turn their backs
Re: Re: Hashtag
"I’m not even an American and I know that El Presidente cannot fire members of Congress!"
One of the regularly embarrassing conversations I have online is to point out how much more familiar I apparently am with American government than so-call "patriots", despite being European who has spent just shy of a year of my life in the US…. and I don’t think that year was necessary for the knowledge I’ve gained by taking a basic level of interest over the years. How can people who fetishise the flag so much lack the most cursory knowledge of what it represents?
Re: Re: Re: Hashtag
Because they want a leader that they can follow without thinking.
Re: Re: Re: Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
When I was in high school —admittedly some decades ago — out of the entire four years of high school, I had just a single required quarter-long class in “state and local government”. It was clearly too little class time for much depth, or for any wider scope.
In college, at university, in an engineering program — nothing.
PROPOSAL:
Re: Re: Re:2 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
Answer: No
Re: Re: Re:3 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.”
― James Madison
Re: Re: Re:4 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
In the past, the US had set high school graduation requirements to include a section on civics. This class taught how our government is supposed to work, even though it does not actually work that way – never has.
Higher education is not the place for indoctrination, as the student is required to pay more of their own way every year. If the government wants to engage the populace with political propaganda, higher education is not the right place because most of those attending are there to learn, not indulge in politics.
Re: Re: Re:2 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
"In college, at university, in an engineering program — nothing."
I’ll just say that if you’re complaining that basic civics are not being discussed in a program that has nothing to do with the subject, at an educational level that a huge number of people will never reach to begin with, your focus is a little bit off.
Re: Re: Re:3 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
who do you want to teach — kindergardeners?
The American experiment in self-government requires an advanced degree of knowledge broadly dispersed among the voting population.
Not all of that knowledge need be acquired through formal education. But the formal education system can —should— —must— be a tremendous aid in broadly dispersing a core basis of knowledge to all the people.
Re: Re: Re:4 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
"who do you want to teach — kindergardeners?"
I’m sure there’s some middle ground between kindergarten and a level where most people who would actually benefit from the education would never reach.
"But the formal education system can —should— —must— be a tremendous aid in broadly dispersing a core basis of knowledge to all the people."
Yes, so maybe college engineering degree courses aren’t the best place for it?
Re: Re: Re:5 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
From Wikipedia: Educational attainment in the United States
Two points:
First, we need that segment of the population to be well-educated enough that they’re able to transfer their formally-acquired knowledge to others around them through less-formal channels.
Second, just within that segment of the population, we need more advanced and in-depth knowledge than a high-school level.
Re: Re: Re:6 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
"In 2020… Over one in four adults (27 percent) had attained at least a bachelor’s degree."
So, 73% of potential voters have not. Since we’re talking about basic civics here, why is that acceptable? Should people be getting that knowledge well before they get to college, so that the people who never go there get the same education?
"Second, just within that segment of the population, we need more advanced and in-depth knowledge than a high-school level."
Yes, but I’m talking about a level that I, as a non-American who has largely gained the knowledge by reading news stories and talking to people online, has attained despite obviously never having been taught a moment of US civics in school. Why is that knowledge so lacking among voters, when I have found it so easy to come by from 3000 miles away?
Re: Re: Re:7 Fixing problems [was Hashtag
Let’s swing back to 47 USC § 230 for a minute, but on a meta level, as a convenient and topical example.
A college-educated person in the United States today should have the basic skills to be able to quickly find the text of that statute online, read, and comprehend the basics.
Deeper than that, they should have the core knowledge that judges, in their opinions, have repeated over and over and over again, sometimes pounding the table: Always read the text of the statute. Read the text of the statute. Read the statute.
Can we realistically expect high-schoolers to get this?
Re: Re: Re:8 Fixing problems [was Has
Why would high schoolers "not get" this if provided accurate and timely information?
High schoolers are not stupid.
Re: Re: Re:8 Fixing problems [was Has
Again, I’m not talking about advanced skills. I’m talking about basic civics that I’ve been able to pick up from the other side of the Atlantic, that a large number of US voters don’t seem to have any knowledge of. That’s a problem, no?
Re: Re: Re:4 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
"the formal education system can —should— —must— be a tremendous aid in broadly dispersing a core basis of knowledge to all the people."
This looks like it came out of some dictator how to manual. What sort of bug got up your ass?
Here is the million dollar question: Who gets to say what is "taught" and who gets to set the consequences for failure?
Runner up question: Who gets to pay for all this propaganda?
btw, the kindergarten or university choice is a bit silly as the effort should be more than just one easy to forget class.
Re: Re: Re:5 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
Take those in reverse order: The easy one first. It’s a required class. Could be graded pass-fail. In any event, no pass means no degree.
Second, the harder question: For a short while, while the program is getting spun up, we can defer development of course content to the institutions themselves. The higher education institutions themselves have professional expertise in developing new courses. Pretty quickly, essential course content can be set by accreditation bodies (vaguely similar to the way ABET works now). If that isn’t sufficient, then further adjustments can be made down the road.
There’s a fixed amount of time in a two-year or four-year program. Students and programs will have to cut an elective to fit this requirement in. Other than funds expended on course development, should be approximately neutral in overall expenditures.
Bottom line, though — look at the cost of failing to educate Americans in self-government. If ignorance prevails — the government breaks.
Re: Re: Re:6 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
Again, no thank you.
The idea that indoctrination will result in nirvana is silly. Your good intentions will be litter along the road to unrelated political ends.
There is no easy solution, indeed there is no solution.
The struggle is real and it never goes away.
Your required class will only piss off higher education, perhaps that is your goal.
Re: Re: Re:7 Fixing problems [was Hashtag
If higher education gets pissed-off upon being told that their institutions are right now failing the nation…
… perfectly understandable to be pissed-off upon receiving that bad news. It is impolitic to tell them their institutions and professions are failing to pull their weight. Impolitic to flatly tell them they’re required to alter what they teach.
But they’ll get over it. ‘Cause it’s truly needed. Change is necessary. And then, perhaps, those institutions and professionals can be counted on to help out the nation to which they belong. To do what they can do for their country.
I do agree with you in one sense, the struggle against ignorance is never-ending. But that does not mean giving up a hopeless fight. It means ever-striving to make the American experiment work.
Re: Re: Re:8 Fixing problems [was Has
Are you seriously attempting to blame our education system for the ills that plague the world today?
Get serious or get out.
I’m curious, what specific changes do you think are necessary in the curriculum of higher education, in order to implement your politically motivated mandatory classes? And what sort of changes do you think are necessary at the high school level in order to implement these politically motivated measures?
Re: Re: Re:9
It does play a role in creating and perpetuating those ills, yes.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
I do not dispute that education needs help, however the major contributors to world problems do not come from the classroom.
Would a better education have prevented past dictators from their murderous rage? Would a better education have prevented the wild speculation leading up to and causing the great depression? I doubt a better education would have prevented World War One or Two.
I may be a bit presumptuous about the intentions of those wanting to change the education system due to recent past news items, specifically AP History. Some people want students to be taught Patriotism rather than civil war details for example.
Re: Re: Re:11
Don’t make proclamations you can’t back up without essentially being God.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
"Don’t make proclamations you can’t back up without essentially being God."
Sorry, you will have to explain that one.
Re: Re: Re:8 Fixing problems [was Has
"But they’ll get over it. ‘Cause it’s truly needed. "
Tell this to the adjunct professors, they are underpaid and becoming more prevalent due to cost cutting measures put in place by those who think austerity is the only way to go. Many of these profs find more lucrative employment elsewhere creating a void that is difficult to fill. This looks like a recipe to disrupt/destroy higher education. Is this your mission?
Re: Re: Re:7 Education ≠ Indoctrination
Yes, here in the States we bullshit our students from a Very Young Age. (And yes, I’m bitter about it.) But we can educate our kids regarding critical thinking and looking shit up (especially now we have the internet) rather than relying on the American Exceptionalism Bullshit the school districts mandated to the faculty to teach.
In fact, part of the Reason This Happened has to do with school districts getting the directive not to teach critical thinking skills (as per some state Republican Party platforms) in order to keep them obedient and not challenging authority.
Your instant army can easily become someone else’s instant army if they’re more charismatic and make better promises.
Re: Re: Re:2 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
The reason such a class rarely exists, if at all, in the US educational system is because it would inevitably be co-opted by special interests and stymied by politics to the point of uselessness.
The short and sweet answer is: We don’t have classes on government because We, as a country, cannot agree on how government should be conducted.
The US officially claims itself as a representative republic, but the actual desire of it’s citizenry is far from it:
Conservative beliefs range from a theocratic dictatorship, to a minimalist barely functional body with no power beyond enforcing their interpretations of the Bible. Progressive beliefs form from a range things (free healthcare, education, no bribery of politicians, equal pay for equal labor, no signing away your rights in a legal contract, etc.) and often they can’t agree with each other on a minimal baseline. Corporatists believe in the absolute power of moneyed interests above all else. Even if it harms society as a whole. Libertarians in one form believe in nothing but rugged individualism. There are even more groups than that, along with even more individual line item differences, among the one’s I’ve already portrayed (inaccurately).
The statement (inaccurately) above is made because of the following: Whereas most other modern Western nations would have a fair and open debate about such differences and believe in their opponent’s good intentions to create a society that works for everyone, the US openly considers fellow citizens with different mindsets as an enemy to be hunted down and killed. The US citizenry will believe the worst in each other with little to no prodding. A fact used by their politicians as standard operating procedure during debates and elections, and also when trying to scuttle any legislation that implements a different viewpoint no matter how small. For examples: Just look at the current pandemic stimulus (Corporatists vs. Progressives), Abortion (Conservatives vs. Libertarians & Progressives), or even this specific topic of education on governance (Everyone vs. Everyone else’s indoctrination).
That fact also carries non-trivial threats as well: Politicians would be kicked out of office for saying this much alone. Employers risk boycotts, legal and legislative blow back from the opposing sides, and massive negative PR campaigns that all seek to harm their profitability. Workers risk losing their jobs, with no real recourse, if their boss(es) decide to take offense to their views. Possibly even industry blacklisting if their former employer chooses. Families risk divorce, and internal strife. Individuals face blow back from social media, at any point in the future, in the form of an ungodly amount of hatred being sent to them at bare minimum, possibly a doxing with an attempt at their livelihood.
Those conditions make any public depiction of political views extremely risky in the US. It’s the number one way to ruin your life there.
The last thing any teacher, or school district, would want is to be forced into that position knowing what lies in store for their trouble. Most US educational institutions actively attempt to avoid any and all politics outside of their own operations. The few that do cross this line often do so only with the explicit consent of the students / parents, and always allow an opt-out to be made for any reason. Those that don’t allow an opt-out, regardless of justification, will very quickly find themselves at the heart of a national conversation of just how evil and wrong they are. Spotlight on every single decision they’ve ever made for all to see and demonize.
As result, you have little to no classes on governance in the US, because the US is too childish to allow it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Fixing problems [was Hashtag]
"As result, you have little to no classes on governance in the US, because the US is too childish to allow it."
It is worse than that. They want to teach bullshit
The bizarre war against AP U.S. history courses
Re: Hashtag
I should have used /s. Didn’t think anyone wouldn’t get the dripping sarcasm of my comment.
Re: Re: "should've used /s"
I think that’s an achievement badge, getting a sarcastic comment flagged as if it wasn’t.
Re: Re: Hashtag
Poe’s law strikes again… Add an /s next time.
Re: Re: Hashtag
This is why Poe enacted his law.
There is the reason they want to remove section 230, they want to censor the Internet, and section 230 stops them. The repeal has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with control and censorship.
It was never anything more than posturing on Trump’s part anyhow. If he has any ambitions for himself or Ivanka, being the guy who defunded the military for any reason would be poison.
Re: Re:
I mean, you’d think colluding with Russia to undermine American democracy would have hurt him with the Republican base, and yet here we are.
Re: Re:
While it’s probably a bluff on his part his cultists are stupid enough that it would be trivial to shift the blame if he tried to follow through, simply say that he’s merely looking out for National Security! and that since he said that he’d veto any bill that didn’t include a revocation of 230 the ones who presented any such bill are the ones to blame for defunding the military, not him, since they chose not to include that clause.
"“Republicans are sick of this shit.” "
Welcome to the party, what took you so long?
idk, looks like a very weak last ditch cya effort to me.
These pukes will not be able to wash the trump stench for at least a few weeks but their supporters will get used to it. Do not believe their fake objections to the nazi agenda.
Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201204/11522445820/nancy-pelosi-sells-out-public-agrees-to-put-massive-copyright-reform-must-pass-spending-bill.shtml
Look like 230 is safe for now, any update on the CASE Act?
From Trump
Fuck you then, I’m taking my ball home!
Spoilt brat!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Priority #1
"There is still plenty of appetite to attack Section 230." Very true; first, here’s the operational part of the section:
"(c) Protection for Good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)."
There’s a lot of people, of differing opinions, who either don’t trust Big Tech as "Good Samaritans", or don’t believe there’s much of a "good faith" effort going on. Either there’s not enough "objectionable" speech, or not enough suppression of such speech. Those who know this law know that the only thing protecting Big Tech from a flood of lawsuits is the "otherwise objectionable" clause, where the context of the law is clearly aimed at pornographic material. The Republican party, when it has returned to power, will make those two words priority #1. In the meantime, Democrats need to add some clarity to this law, while providing some sort of balance, so that it doesn’t look like that they’re giving Big Business priority over the speech of individuals.
Re: Priority #1
… your own comment undercuts itself. Yes (c)(2)(a) mentions ‘good faith’, but (c)(2)(b), which immediately follows an or does not, and (c)(1) provides a pretty clear general rule of ‘you aren’t allowed to hold platforms or users liable for stuff they didn’t create’.
As for the ‘context’ I’d say that reading is far too narrow, as semi-recently both authors of the bill have chimed in and noted that how 230 is being applied is perfectly in line with what they had in mind.
In the meantime, Democrats need to add some clarity to this law, while providing some sort of balance, so that it doesn’t look like that they’re giving Big Business priority over the speech of individuals.
There’s no need for clarification, because as noted above it’s working as intended, and keeping the law ‘vague’ is a feature rather than a bug as trying to narrow it down would make a massive mess of things as people work around specific rules regarding what could and could not be published. As for who gets ‘priority’ that’s also not a problem, the platform owner gets to decide what speech they will and will not allow on their platform, that’s how it works offline and I’ve yet to see any reason for why it should be different online.
Re: Priority #1
In the meantime, Democrats need to add some clarity to this law
This law is as clear as… something that’s really, really clear. Like dry air on a sunny day.
People who cannot see the clarity either have an agenda or need their eyes examined.
Re: Priority #1
I see we have here someone who thinks that freedom of speech means compelling other to carry your speech. Freedom of speech has never meant that other have to help you publish your speech. If it did, you would have been able to compel book, magazine, newspaper, radio and to companies to publish your speech.
Re: Priority #1
Fuck off with your revisionist bullshit.
Re: Priority #1
"the only thing protecting Big Tech from a flood of lawsuits is the "otherwise objectionable" clause"
What do you envision this flood to look like? Will it be law suits similar to the ones attempting to over turn the election? Whiny Karen types who are absolutely right while everyone else is wrong? The court system is not capable of supporting such insanity.
"The Republican party, when it has returned to power, will make those two words priority #1. "
The GOP is dead, they committed suicide. Empty promises are the hallmark of the GOP, what else will they promise and then do the complete opposite while laughing in your face
Re: Re: The GOP is dead
It’s a nice wish.
No-one in 2016 remembered how the GOP fucked up the United States good and hard from 2001-2009. And plenty in 2020 decided they wanted a bit more of that pounding, thank you sir.
The GOP will be dead when they’re hanging from gibbets and suspended on pikes, but short of that, they’re alive and well and looking to manipulate the suckers of the US population.
Re: Re: Re: The GOP is dead
True. However, one never knows how many will survive their own misdeeds.
Covid does not care about politics, I fear things will get worse.