Ted Cruz, Jack Dorsey, Twitter, and Free Speech

GOP Texas Senator Ted Cruz, member of the Senate Commerce Committee, moments before he screamed at Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey via remote hearing about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Once again, Ted Cruz turns in a great performance, and quite possibly may be nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award for the same.

A reminder:
While he was in high school, Ted’s parents talked him out of moving to California to pursue an acting career. So he said in a November 2013 interview with the Boston Globe.

But yesterday, the Asshole from Texas, aka Republican Senator Ted Cruz, made an ass out of himself.

No surprise there, eh?

Nobody likes Cruz. Recall that in 2016, former Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner (OH-8) called him “Lucifer in the flesh.” Additional diatribes against Cruz may be found at the conclusion of this article.

Ted WILL make a run for the Presidency again, so he’s just posturing. After all, it IS election season, and even though he’s not on an election ticket, per se, he is on the ticket. And just 2 years ago (2018), Cruz just barely escaped being replaced by Democratic challenger Representative Beto O’Rourke (TX-16) – 50.9% to 48.3% of 8,371,655 ballots cast.

In fact, the entire GOP slate is on the ticket nationwide this year. And so far, it’s not looking good. It didn’t look good yesterday, either. The “optics” aren’t good, goes the saying about political appearances.

But more to the point…

The Senate Commerce Committee conducted a Full Committee Hearing on Wednesday, October 28, 2020, 10:00 a.m. which was entitled, “Does Section 230’s Sweeping Immunity Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior?”

What is Section 230?

In short, Jeff Kossett describes it as the “26 words that created the Internet.”

Who is Jeff Kossett?

Jeff Kossett is Assistant Professor of Cybersecurity Law at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and is one of the nation’s foremost experts on Section 230. Regarding the law, he said, “Section 230 set the legal framework for the Internet that we know today that relies heavily on user content rather than content that companies create. Without Section 230, companies would not be willing to take so many risks.”

The law, written in 1996, modified the 1996 Communications Decency Act, is short, sweet, and to the point.

Section 230(c)(1) reads:

“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.”

But this hearing was pure grandstanding from the get-go.

Why?

Senators

A Look at Job Creation -OR- How To Make Someone Say Anything… including the President

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been thinking about truth, truth-telling, falsehoods, lying and other machinations of language by and through which we communicate.

Interestingly, I’ve also though of where those items may have intersections of law, law violation, duty, freedom, rights and civic responsibility.

As an illustration, or imaginary case in point, if a police officer asks you a question, a person is most often and typically required to tell the truth. That is, they are required to answer honestly. There are various penalties associated with lying to a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), which vary state to state, and in various localities.

Here’s something more specific, however. Number one, you don’t have to talk. That’s guaranteed by our Fifth Amendment. And even if there is no possibility of self-incrimination (that is to say, you are not accused of any wrong doing), a person still has no legal requirement to speak.

However, if they do speak, they must