[ad_1]
Last Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed the Texas 7-2 lawsuit. At that time, most of the outsiders lamented the lack of courage of justice. Unexpectedly, on Thursday (17), lawyer Linwood explosively claimed that there may be deeper inside information;
Also, President Trump (Trump) wants to veto the National Defense Authorization Act! The objective of this battle is to face the technological monsters that hold the gold medal without death and have powerful allies. President Trump promised to deliver a thunderous blow.
And these tech giants are fighting back. Yesterday, YouTube removed an episode of Xiaoxu’s English show. What happened? Will we withdraw under pressure? Let’s analyze today’s program.
[¿Bomba de choque de Lingwood? Se refiere a la revocación secreta del telegrama del presidente del Tribunal Supremo]
On Thursday afternoon, attorney Linwood, who has been fighting legal battles in his own capacity, dropped multiple box office bombs on Twitter.
First he said: This may be the most important tweet of your life. Then he wrote: Chief Justice John Roberts is corrupt and should resign immediately. Judge Stephen Breyer should also immediately resign. They are anti-Trumpists, trying to prevent the public from understanding the truth.
Linwood said: In a phone call on August 19, Judge Roberts said he would make sure “that bastard” was not re-elected. During the call, Roberts and Judge Breyer discussed how to get Trump to resign.
Linwood also said that if I made a mistake on the date of the call, ask Judge Roberts directly and he will be able to tell you the correct date. He owes people an answer, and he owes us the truth.
Linwood hinted that he had the evidence and said he had released the relevant documents to various third parties.
He also issued a non-suicide statement with quite a bit of “Chinese characteristics”, saying that you can be sure that I will not commit suicide, I have security and there are many good people who are good at protecting me. He also said: Today I revealed the ugly truth about the Supreme Court. I know they will attack me or worse, but I love my country and freedom, and we must all face the truth.
It can be said that this accusation is shocking. What do you think of the credibility?
[Separación de poderes del mecanismo de acusación de la justicia para proteger la Constitución]
You may be curious, the Supreme Court justices are the highest judicial officials and they have a life term, if they have problems, who will punish them?
Of course there is a way. The Federal Constitution of the United States stipulates that federal judges will be removed from office when charged and convicted of treason, bribery, or other serious crimes and misdemeanors.
However, an impeachment case must be initiated by the House Judiciary Committee, and then investigated, and then the investigative report is presented to the members of the House of Representatives for a vote. If the impeachment resolution is approved, it will be sent to the Senate for trial. At this time, the Senate should have one-third of the justices serving as trial judges. The second senator accepts impeachment, and the impeachment case is deemed to have passed.
Since the founding of the United States, 15 judges have been indicted and 7 of them have been successfully indicted.
But we know that this Congress will rise today and the next Congress will be replaced on January 3. Even if Linwood presented actual evidence, is it significant?
[Estudio: Los jueces están perdiendo gradualmente la neutralidad política hacia la izquierda]
Judge Roberts was nominated by former Republican President Bush Jr. in 2005. He was considered a conservative in his early years, but in recent years he has leaned to the left on important issues, such as supporting Obama’s health insurance, and Trump criticized him for it. Said Roberts looks like a puppet.
Roberts’s “lean to the left” is not a case. There is an important indicator called the “Martin Quinn score,” which is used specifically to quantitatively test the ideology of judges. It turns out whether it is the judges nominated by the Republican president or the judges nominated by the Democratic president, the general trend is increasingly left, and even the trend of judges nominated by the Republican party is more obvious.
At the same time, the judges themselves remain politically neutral, and the judges generally avoid criticizing presidential candidates. But in the 2016 election, Judge Ginsberg criticized Trump by name.
Why is there such a phenomenon?
[Selección de escolta de la Sección 230 de la medalla de oro sin muertos de Behemoth de ciencia y tecnología]
President Trump announced on Twitter Thursday that he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act because the CCP likes the current version.
President Trump previously stated that if the National Defense Authorization Act cannot repeal Section 230 of the Communications Regulation Act, it will veto it.
Clause 230 is nicknamed the “deathless gold medal” from the tech giants. Simply put, clause 230 has two important points.
The first important point is that Internet companies are not responsible for the information disclosed by users, for example, if someone posts defaming others on Twitter, Twitter is not responsible;
The second important point is that Internet companies can remove certain content from the platform in “good faith”; For example, if someone broadcasts a terrorist attack on Twitter, Twitter can be removed in good faith.
When Clause 230 was introduced in 1996, it was to protect the internet company that was still a baby at the time, otherwise no one would dare to be a platform.
But when little Baby grows up to become a technological giant, this giant has a gold medal for avoiding death and becomes an invincible monster in the world.
These tech monsters use Section 230 to perfection.
When they want to broadcast some type of speech, they let it go at will, saying “that is the user’s freedom of expression, and we are not responsible for the user’s speech”;
When they want to censor certain statements, they remove posts at will and then say, “We remove posts in good faith.” But what is the standard of goodwill? Who will define? Themselves.
Yesterday, YouTube removed a self-media video of Xiaoxu. Xiaoxu, tell me what’s going on? (How to comment)
What do you think about this? How did the internet giants influence the election this time around?
[Ambas partes quieren cambiar la Sección 230, la izquierda y la derecha son muy diferentes]
Now, both parties want to modify Section 230, but the direction of the reform is one to the left and the other, which is very different.
Trump and many Republican lawmakers believe that social media has too much power to evaluate and erase discourses on whether they are true or false, good or bad; they are equivalent to government, outperforming traditional media and publishers, and should no longer use clause 230. Cover yourself up and enjoy immunity.
On the other hand, Biden and many Democrats have also called for amendments to Section 230, but believe that social media must be more proactive in managing user speech, otherwise it would amount to encouraging the spread of fake news in disguise.
What do the Internet giants say? Of course they are against it. The reason is that if Clause 230 is removed, they may face endless litigation, so they are forced to spend more resources to do voice identification work and may be forced to adjust the criteria for removal. .
What does that mean? In the past, a certain user defamed others and the Internet company was not responsible, but in the future you may have to move on. To be safe, you should delete posts when you see a bit of slander from the user. Isn’t this a counterproductive and heightened censorship?
This justification seems reasonable, right? But on second thought, they only spoke on one side of the problem and avoided the other.
What is the other side? Even after Clause 230 is abolished, if you delete posts at will, you can also be charged. For example, in the Biden family scandal reported by the New York Post a while ago, how many people were removed by Twitter after being forwarded, and now the result is confirmed to be true. Did Twitter at that time violate the freedom of expression of citizens? If you don’t have a Section 230 umbrella, you can arbitrarily remove posts and you may face a class action lawsuit. Will you dare to delete posts at will?
But it is undeniable that if Clause 230 is completely repealed, it can cause Internet companies to join the list as defendants in civil litigation, which is unfair to them in some cases. How to do? Some people suggested that the first half of Section 230 should be kept and the second half removed.
Simply put, continue to allow them not to be responsible for external user comments, but they must be held responsible for their own use of the right to remove posts. They can remove really harmful comments based on corporate responsibility, but if the goal is to remove political speech or deeds, they should give the removed person a legal way to get justice.
What do you think of this suggestion? Many people worry that these tech giants will use powerful lobbying power to prevent repeal of Section 230. What if the status quo is maintained? What is the impact on American democracy? Does it lead to the combination of power and capital; monopoly of speech and brainwashing; network management departments; long-term influence on America’s information ecology and voter structure, a digital totalitarian as a beautiful new world?
[Bajocensura¿inclinaslacabeza?¿Retrocederábajopresiónpolítica?】
Hablando de censura en las redes sociales, como votó el Colegio Electoral esta semana, Rusia y otros jefes de estado comenzaron a felicitar a Biden. Newsmax y otros medios, que anteriormente se negaron a reconocer la victoria de Biden, también comenzaron a cambiar sus lemas a Biden como “presidente electo”. Algunas personas preguntaron amablemente, ¿quieres cambiar de opinión? ¿Quieres dejarte una salida?
Xiaoxu / Qin Peng: ¿Qué opinas? ¿Cambiarás tu boca? ¿Habrá reservas?
También quiero hablar sobre mis pensamientos personales.
Permítanme hablarles de una historia familiar de Zuo Zhuan. Durante el período de primavera y otoño, un funcionario del poder en el estado de Qi se llamaba Cui Zhu y conspiró para matar al monarca debido a sus quejas personales con Qi Zhuanggong. El historiador del estado de Qi, Tai Shigong, registró verazmente, escribió cinco palabras: “Cui Zhu mató a su rey”. Cui Zhu estaba furioso y mató a Tai Shi.
El hermano menor de Tai Shizhong, Tai Shizhong, asumió el cargo de historiador oficial y continuó escribiendo: “Cui Zhu mató a su rey”, Cui Zhu mató a Tai Shizhong de nuevo. Luego cambié al segundo hermano de Tai Shi Gong, Tai Shi Shu, y escribí esto, y luego lo maté; en los últimos cuatro hermanos de esta familia, solo quedó el último hermano Tai Shi Ji, dijo Cui Zhu, todos tus hermanos están muertos, ¿no tienes miedo a la muerte? Escúchame, cambia la forma de escribir, di cómo murió el duque Qi Zhuang, no digas que yo lo maté, y te perdonaré la vida.
Tai Shiji respondió: Según el libro, lo que sucedió debe escribirse de acuerdo con la situación real. Este es el deber de un historiador. Es mejor morir si no encuentras un trabajo. Y tarde o temprano se te sabrá sobre lo que hiciste, incluso si no lo escribo. No puede encubrir sus pecados, pero se ha convertido en el hazmerreír de todos los tiempos. Cui Zhu no tenía nada que decir y finalmente liberó a Tai Shi Ji. Cuando Tai Shiji salió, vio al clan Nan Shi que venía con un papel y lápiz y papel. Resultó que Nan Shi pensó que iban a matar a la familia de Tai Shi Gong, así que se apresuró a seguir grabando.
Las noticias de hoy son la historia de mañana. ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre los periodistas de hoy y los historiadores del pasado? Según el libro de la materia, ¿sigue siendo la elección de todos encontrar un trabajo sin trabajo? Esta es mi opinión sobre si quedarme atrás.
Por favor ayude a difundir la verdad, suscríbase, haga clic en Me gusta, reenvíe y deje un mensaje para que más personas puedan ver la información real. Al mismo tiempo, puedes suscribirte a NTDTV y News. Hablaremos de estos dos canales. Nos vemos mañana a la misma hora.
Método de visualización en línea:
Noticias de Epochtimes: https://www.epochtimes.com/b5/nf1334917.htm
Habla sobre las noticias: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_wRsYpCP2kuql6BuTM7W_g?view_as=subscriber
Transmisión en vivo de NTD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0r1j2CGOX4&feature=youtu.be
[Apoyo]To accompany the truth and speak for the silence, only today, support The Epoch Timeshttps://donate.epochtimes.com
NTD Epoch Production Team “News Everyone Talks”
Editor in Charge: Sun Yun #
