Ari Cohn Profile picture
14 Feb, 22 tweets, 8 min read
Roses are red
Hydrangeas are white
You can't sue over speech
Removed by a website

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Hibiscus is Haitian
Even without #Section230
They'd still have a right to content moderation

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Getting banned makes you blue
But social media's not government
So First Amendment rights don't accrue

(Tangentially) #Section230valentines
Roses are red
Websites aren't a company town
If you argue "but MARSH!"
You look like a clown

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
This shouldn't need explanation
But Title II doesn't make Facebook
A public accommodation

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Cruz and Hawley are losers
#Section230 protects websites
But ALSO their users

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Your #Section230 bill is trash
Stop messing with the Internet
To make a partisan splash

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Reading comprehension's a barrier
But websites do not fit
The definition of common carrier

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
You have no credibility
If you argue that websites
Are a public utility

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Your state law is preempted
It's a mark of stupidity
That you even attempted

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Just ask Steven Biss
Lawsuits about third party content
Get tossed on a motion to dismiss

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
There's no difference required
Between publisher and platform
@tedcruz is a liar

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Laura Loomer is blue
She lost all her lawsuits
Oh no! Wah! Boo-hoo!

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
It sucks for a troll
The First Amendment says websites
Maintain editorial control

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
They can also be pink
c(1) and (c)(2) don't make the distinction
That you seem to think

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Moderation is hard
230 repeal's not the answer
Hawley is a blowhard

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Tulsi Gabbard is dumb
The First Amendment is what
Really makes her so glum

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
They'll scream into their pillow
Websites can delete stuff
It says so in Tornillo

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Your proposal's a wreck
You're pretty socialist
If you say "nationalize big tech"

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
MAGA did insurrection
Social media has the right
To perform a correction

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
Archive.org keeps receipts
Repeal #Section230
And you’ll get sued for retweets

#Section230valentines
Roses are red
What the hell are you drinking
Messing with 230
Plays into MAGA's thinking

#Section230valentines

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ari Cohn

Ari Cohn Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AriCohn

14 Feb
S.O. decided that 11:30 was a good time to start watching Titanic, and in retribution I have now assumed the role of a Titanic truther. Let's see how this goes.
No way that iceberg was big enough. It was a government job.
Jack was a crisis actor.
Read 7 tweets
24 Jan
1/ Another day, another #Section230 op-ed unmoored from fact and law. This one comes to you via @WilliamLKovacs and @TheHillOpinion. It is a tangle of the usual factual and legal misunderstandings, with a strange new one thrown in for good measure.

thehill.com/opinion/techno…
2/ Let's talk about this opening paragraph. First, it certainly was *not* a "sneak attack." Twitter has been quite clear that Trump ogot away with things that would get others banned because he was president. If you didn't see this coming, you just weren't paying attention.
3/ The Parler dispute was also not a "sneak attack," and to claim it is strikes me as dishonest. It was a direct response to developing events--you know, the *actual attack* on the Capitol.
Read 22 tweets
22 Jan
The weirdest part about this @wyattemmerich piece isn't the total misunderstanding of #Section230 or the failure to grasp that repealing it wouldn't outlaw content moderation.

It's the part where he claims we were better off when dueling was a thing.

northsidesun.com/news-most-rece…
What a shame that we can no longer shoot people for being mean!
"Police shooting suspects is often tragic, but effective!" @wyattemmerich, probably.
Read 4 tweets
22 Jan
Lol he tagged one of those national media outlets, and the employer, then gloated about the result but he's mad that people are calling him out on it.

Such a pathetic ❄️❄️❄️❄️, wanting to help assemble the mob but then escape any criticism for it. Own it you fucking dweeb. ImageImageImage
Maybe pulling your money out of Accipiter Capital Management would be a good idea 🤷‍♂️
Read 5 tweets
21 Jan
This is nonsense logic that does not survive even cursory thought.

The government does plenty of things that make it possible for private actors to "censor.

Does freedom of association make *everyone* a state actor?
I suppose it makes a lot of sense to analogize allowing private companies to control their property with allowing others to obstruct access to not their property.

At least, it makes sense if you choose not to think about it.

Now show me where #Section230 demands content moderation as opposed to allowing providers to make their own decisions.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Read 5 tweets
17 Jan
This is incredibly disappointing coming from someone like Geoffrey Stone, who knows perfectly well that the Fairness Doctrine was only constitutional because broadcast spectrum is scarce, and that it could not have applied to cable/internet.

For shame.

post-gazette.com/news/insight/2… Image
At best this is oversimplification to the point of being misleading.

At worst, it is downright dishonest.
Stone also cites to dicta in Marsh v. Alabama, but doesn't tell readers that private entities are only state actors for First Amendment purposes when they perform functions traditionally & exclusively exercised by the state.

Oh, and that SCOTUS recently rejected this argument. Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!