Ross Ulbricht

[Weyoun]

Help me with this one.

Republicans are supposedly soooo worried about child pornography that a QAnoner shot up a pizza joint.

They are also supposedly soooo worried about illegal drugs that we are going to raise tariffs, or something, and make inflation worse, because we mad!!!

Also, we are told to be law and order and respectful, and that criminals must be punished!

So why is Ross Ulbricht, who ran a website that illegally trafficked drugs, child porn, and God knows what else, free?

[Spock]

Help me with this one.

Republicans are supposedly soooo worried about child pornography that a QAnoner shot up a pizza joint.

They are also supposedly soooo worried about illegal drugs that we are going to raise tariffs, or something, and make inflation worse, because we mad!!!

Also, we are told to be law and order and respectful, and that criminals must be punished!

So why is Ross Ulbricht, who ran a website that illegally trafficked drugs, child porn, and God knows what else, free?

I know you are not stupid, so I suspect you know the answer. If not, you would have looked up the reasoning behind it rather than come to a very obscure and lightly visited forum.

But, I will play along.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

[Beebs52]

"In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:"

This is weird shit. Someone explain without bs.

[BackInTex]

"In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:"

This is weird shit. Someone explain without bs.

Think of it like a motel. You own the motel. Folks rent rooms from you. Are you responsible for what goes on in the rooms? No, to an extent.

However, if you know what’s going on and it is illegal, and you turn a blind eye, you could be considered complicit. If you don’t follow standard industry practices, such as requiring ID and registering names, you could be considered facilitating or inviting the illicit behavior.

With communications there is a free speech and privacy argument as well. To me, those are bogus here. As with motels, if your property is known as a prostitution house then you are enabling it and thus involved. I don’t know anything about Ulbricht. I don’t know if he operates a website or just owns the servers (similar AWS).

[Weyoun]

Help me with this one.

Republicans are supposedly soooo worried about child pornography that a QAnoner shot up a pizza joint.

They are also supposedly soooo worried about illegal drugs that we are going to raise tariffs, or something, and make inflation worse, because we mad!!!

Also, we are told to be law and order and respectful, and that criminals must be punished!

So why is Ross Ulbricht, who ran a website that illegally trafficked drugs, child porn, and God knows what else, free?

I know you are not stupid, so I suspect you know the answer. If not, you would have looked up the reasoning behind it rather than come to a very obscure and lightly visited forum.

But, I will play along.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

I think the reasoning is that he was a cause celebre among bitcoin investors, as he was an early advocate and user of bitcoin. They donated a bunch of money to the campaign and he gets off scott free.

I think it’s completely fair to criticize Biden when he let someone off like Shapiro, for money reasons. This is all the more abhorrent here because of what this guy was involved with.

And if it was a matter of being an issue under a particular communication act, it would’ve been adjudicated on appeal that way. His case has been appealed multiple times and it never went anywhere. Because he was guilty. The president can say or think whatever, but to act like his interpretation of a law is special is just covering up the larger issue mentioned above.

All of this steps around the background issue, which is the sense that the guy was probably arranging hits on people trying to expose them, though it never got to the point where they could establish clear evidence of it, so they just went with the other illegal things that he was doing.

Get used to it. I’m sure you think America’s gonna be a lot better, but it’s only gonna get better for people who have money and know how to make the right phone call.