Texas Shooting Another Reason to Repeal Section 230 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code.

Uvalde gunman threatened rapes and school shootings on social media app Yubo in weeks leading up to the massacre, users say.

Multiple users reported him to no effect.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/us/yubo-app-salvador-ramos-threats-invs/index.html

Perhaps such platforms should be required to have a link to a new federal law enforcement agency as a means of reporting such threats, since it's been made apparent over and over that internet platforms aren't capable of doing that.

I said a "new federal law enforcement agency" because otherwise... well, do you really think the Uvalde police department would have followed-up in a timely fashion. They couldn't even go after the gunman for an hour AFTER they arrived at the scene.

Or the FBI? Look how they bungled 9/11.

We need a new department under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice whose mandate is to immediately follow-up on such threats. Not gather information for prosecution in the event a crime is later committed but to act upon information so as to PREVENT a crime from being committed.

And the laws need to be changed so that MAKING such threats is a crime that WILL be punished.

If the Uvalde gunman was reported and ARRESTED for making the rape and murder threats, 19 children and their two teachers would be alive today.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

dakotaviper · 56-60, M

Well, that's what Red Flag Laws would accomplish. But they can be used for nefarious reasons. Because if I disagree with you or offend you in some way, I'd be in violation of a Red Flag Law and would have my Gun Ownership Rights taken away immediately. Would I ever get them back after I'm investigated? More than likely that would be a definite NO.

View 3 more replies »

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@beckyromero Because the court is so good at doing that..... Yeah best to leave it out completely.

dakotaviper · 56-60, M

@beckyromero Court system, you're joking aren't you. Or better than that, ask Kyle Rittenhouse if he has gotten his guns back. Because guess what, he hasn't.

Spoiledbrat · F

I don't know why people can't see this. @hippyjoe1955

SomeMichGuy · M

I like this analysis.

The FBI is over-tasked and under-staffed.

Part of the incredibly silly budgetary nonsense has been an unwillingness to fund agencies, etc., to have the staff required to actually perform all the tasks which the Congress has placed in their bucket(s).

This has been a well-documented, ongoing problem for any of the inspection services (Customs, USDA, FAA, even the IRS, probably the SEC). I think many illegal things happen simply because of the vast underfunding of these vital activities.

Perhaps we first need a law which requires fully funding the staff required to perform the duties assigned by Congress.

Johnson212 · 61-69, M

If you want to create a new agency just have one that certifies and inspects school safety plans many of these tragedies including this would would be thwarted by simply following the schools safety plan already in existence. I am sure he choose that school because it knew it would be easy, procedures are too strict at the Uvalde High School.

DeeBee · M

If the law enforcement officers at the scene were not cowards all about self preservation more children would have survived,each of them should have been sacked.If he was a black man un armed they would have unloaded on him without hesitation!

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

SW-User

I'm not sure about the specific issue of complete repeal of 230, but it likely does need some sort of reform, and somehow we survived just fine for decades without social media, so if it hurts social media companies or makes it financially necessary for all social media to become completely paid services (along with every user account verified with a copy of a government-issued photo ID on file), I'm okay with that.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@SW-User

I'm not sure about the specific issue of complete repeal of 230, but it likely does need some sort of reform...

Remove the liability shield and require the link to law enforcement as I mentioned.

if it hurts social media companies or makes it financially necessary for all social media to become completely paid services (along with every user account verified with a copy of a government-issued photo ID on file), I'm okay with that.

No, we don't need to remove anonymity. Nogt with so many repressive regimes around the world and so many stalkers out there, too.

SW-User

No, we don't need to remove anonymity

Perhaps take it on a country by country basis. Maybe don't do it when you can verify someone is logging in from China, but in the US it would be fine. Moreover, your profile details shared with other users can still keep you anonymous, but it would be useful to know that a given account is A) not a bot B) not a male pretending to be a female or vice versa and C) not one of 20 accounts owned by the same user. It's up to a user what they share with other users, if they really think a "stalker" could find them offline, and if the stalker is just online, they can just block the verified stalker account (and report it if necessary).

And we would know these things because the accounts would be truly verified, just not sharing all the verification data with other users on a user's shared profile (these details would be kept in the private part of a user's account settings).

The negatives of social media seem to outweigh the positives, and it's something that did not even exist two decades ago, so even if compliance with verification is a hardship, and even makes it not feasible to operate a social media site, the world would be better off either with the verification scheme or the absence of social media.

Look at social media right now, the predictable false flag conspiracy theories are spreading across it unchecked after yet another mass shooting. It would be better if social media was shut down right now, for whatever length of time. This sort of "free speech" is a cancer (and it's not even a free speech issue at all, when social media didn't exist two decades ago; no one is constitutionally entitled to social media).

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/25/tweets/no-uvalde-school-shooting-wasnt-false-flag/

@beckyromero

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@SW-User

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Private companies are free to do as they chose, but Congress can't force them to require their users give up anonymity.

Add a comment...