The first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump turned contentious. Joe Biden and Donald Trump traded barbs on their golf games and cognitive tests. At one point, the rivals bickered over their golf games.

Trump, Biden spar over golf, cognitive test scores to allay age concerns

The Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is over. Both leaders traded fiery barbs at each other in an attempt to shift the odds of the White House race. Biden and Trump exchanged personal insults and attacks during the nearly two-hour-long debate. Here are some key takeaways from the Biden-Trump debate.

Key Takeaways from the Biden-Trump presidential debate

Stage is set for the Trump-Biden debate on Thursday. What will be the key issues that will dominate the first debate between the two? Collins Chong Yew Keat, Foreign Affairs, Strategy and Security expert, joins us to discuss.

Trump and Biden's first presidential debate of 2024

As the Abortion debate kicks up a storm in U.S, can Joe Biden shoulder re-election bid on the pro-choice movement?

US: Biden-led democrats shoulder poll campaign on abortion rights

With Joe Biden & DonaldTrump electronically muted for portions of the debate, the constant interruptions were replaced by a sharply defined personal attacks, accusations & confusion. WION brings you the best moments from the final Presidential Debate 2020.

Personal attacks, confusion & time

In their final chance, DonaldTrump & and Joe Biden unleashed a series of falsehoods, misleading & exaggerated statements. WION fact-checks the Final Presidential Debate2020.

Falsehoods, misleading & exaggerated claims

Less than 2 weeks to go for US Election 2020, the battle for the White House is only gaining in ferocity. Just a day before the final Presidential Debate, WION reports the opinion polls in key swing states.

Who leads in key states before debate?

One thing that has become crucial in the 2020 Election campaign is The State of Race relations in America. Susan Tehrani brings you a ground report on the deep racial division in America before Election Day.

A reckoning with racism & discrimination

Joe Biden and his wife have tested negative for the coronavirus, his primary care doctor confirmed on Friday.

Joe Biden and wife tests negative for coronavirus: Shared stage with Donald Trump

US lawmakers seeking to rein in Big Tech have been stepping up efforts to limit legal immunity for online services, and now are taking that fight global.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week backed a move by fellow lawmakers to carve out the so-called Section 230 protection — which some activists say is a cornerstone of the open internet — from a North American trade pact with Canada and Mexico, known as USMCA.

"There are concerns in the House about enshrining the increasingly controversial Section 230 liability shield in our trade agreements, particularly at a time when Congress is considering whether changes need to be made in US law," Pelosi spokesman Henry Connelly said.

Debate on Section 230, a clause in the 1996 Communications Decency Act, has been raging for months amid rising concerns about the failure of tech platforms to curb hate speech, extremist content, copyright infringement and other abuses.

The effort to modify the law — which immunizes online services from third-party content on their sites — has drawn support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Republican Senator Josh Hawley proposed legislation earlier this year that would end the immunity unless companies submit to an "external audit" which shows they are acting in a "politically neutral" manner.

"With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship," Hawley said in introducing the legislation. "Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain."

'Proxy' for tech missteps

Civil liberties activists said Hawley's bill is unconstitutional and would put the government in charge of regulating speech. Other analysts point out that Section 230 has enabled the internet to thrive and that modifying it could be devastating for the internet and online speech.

"The services that we enjoy the most exist because of Section 230," said Eric Goldman, director of the High-Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University.

Goldman said Section 230 has become a "proxy" for the frustrations with Facebook and Google but that "American consumers would be the losers" if the law is weakened.

Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told a congressional hearing in October that Section 230 protects not only major tech platforms but any online activity — from forwarding an email to commenting in a news forum to sharing pictures and videos of friends — from "third party liability."

McSherry said that without Section 230, tech firms such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter would not exist in their current form because they would not be able to host user content without fear of a lawsuit.

She argued that eliminating Section 230 would "cement the dominance" of these firms because it would mean higher costs to filter and moderate content that new startups could not afford.

According to Katherine Oyama, Google's head of intellectual property policy, the internet would be a far different experience without the liability shield.

"Without Section 230, platforms could face liability for decisions around removal of content from their platforms," she told lawmakers.

"Review sites like Yelp, TripAdvisor or Angie's List might be sued for defamation claims brought by a restaurant, hotel or an electrician trying to suppress their negative reviews."

Oyama said the current law encourages sites to filter content, but that without the legal protection they might stop all content moderation or simply block anything potentially harmful.

'Healthier' internet?

Danielle Citron, a Boston University law professor specializing in online speech, said Section 230 has failed to live up to its promise and that modifying it could lead to a "healthier" internet.

"Section 230's overbroad interpretation means that platforms have little legal incentive to combat online abuse," Citron told the hearing.

She said that while it has allowed some platforms to moderate content, "they also have been shielded from responsibility even when they solicit illegal activities, deliberately leave up unambiguously illegal content that causes harm, and sell dangerous products."

Citron said the law should be revised "to condition the legal shield on reasonable content moderation practices."

It remains to be seen if lawmakers will move on the law, with a solid bloc of digital rights and industry groups opposing a change.

Ed Black of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group representing many tech firms, said that inserting these provisions in a North American trade pact "is critical to ensure that the agreement is updated to reflect the needs of the internet economy."

Goldman said the inclusion of the protection makes sense for both economics and free speech.

"Section 230 is not just about free speech, it's about improving information flows in the marketplace," he said.

"It creates new opportunities for entrepreneurs to build businesses and also creates opportunities for marketplaces to be more efficient."

US lawmakers seeking to rein in Big Tech have been stepping up efforts to limit legal immunity for online services, and now are taking that fight global. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week backed a move by fellow lawmakers to carve out the so-called Section 230 protection — which some activists say is a cornerstone of the open internet — from a North American trade pact with Canada and Mexico, known as USMCA.

US lawmakers seeking to rein in Big Tech have been stepping up efforts to limit legal immunity for online services, and now are taking that fight global. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week backed a move by fellow lawmakers to carve out the so-called Section 230 protection — which some activists say is a cornerstone of the open internet — from a North American trade pact with Canada and Mexico, known as USMCA. "There are concerns in the House about enshrining the increasingly controversial Section 230 liability shield in our trade agreements, particularly at a time when Congress is considering whether changes need to be made in US law," Pelosi spokesman Henry Connelly said. Debate on Section 230, a clause in the 1996 Communications Decency Act, has been raging for months amid rising concerns about the failure of tech platforms to curb hate speech, extremist content, copyright infringement and other abuses. The effort to modify the law — which immunizes online services from third-party content on their sites — has drawn support from both Democrats and Republicans. Republican Senator Josh Hawley proposed legislation earlier this year that would end the immunity unless companies submit to an "external audit" which shows they are acting in a "politically neutral" manner. "With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship," Hawley said in introducing the legislation. "Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain." 'Proxy' for tech missteps Civil liberties activists said Hawley's bill is unconstitutional and would put the government in charge of regulating speech. Other analysts point out that Section 230 has enabled the internet to thrive and that modifying it could be devastating for the internet and online speech. "The services that we enjoy the most exist because of Section 230," said Eric Goldman, director of the High-Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University. Goldman said Section 230 has become a "proxy" for the frustrations with Facebook and Google but that "American consumers would be the losers" if the law is weakened. Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told a congressional hearing in October that Section 230 protects not only major tech platforms but any online activity — from forwarding an email to commenting in a news forum to sharing pictures and videos of friends — from "third party liability." McSherry said that without Section 230, tech firms such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter would not exist in their current form because they would not be able to host user content without fear of a lawsuit. She argued that eliminating Section 230 would "cement the dominance" of these firms because it would mean higher costs to filter and moderate content that new startups could not afford. According to Katherine Oyama, Google's head of intellectual property policy, the internet would be a far different experience without the liability shield. "Without Section 230, platforms could face liability for decisions around removal of content from their platforms," she told lawmakers. "Review sites like Yelp, TripAdvisor or Angie's List might be sued for defamation claims brought by a restaurant, hotel or an electrician trying to suppress their negative reviews." Oyama said the current law encourages sites to filter content, but that without the legal protection they might stop all content moderation or simply block anything potentially harmful. 'Healthier' internet? Danielle Citron, a Boston University law professor specializing in online speech, said Section 230 has failed to live up to its promise and that modifying it could lead to a "healthier" internet. "Section 230's overbroad interpretation means that platforms have little legal incentive to combat online abuse," Citron told the hearing. She said that while it has allowed some platforms to moderate content, "they also have been shielded from responsibility even when they solicit illegal activities, deliberately leave up unambiguously illegal content that causes harm, and sell dangerous products." Citron said the law should be revised "to condition the legal shield on reasonable content moderation practices." It remains to be seen if lawmakers will move on the law, with a solid bloc of digital rights and industry groups opposing a change. Ed Black of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group representing many tech firms, said that inserting these provisions in a North American trade pact "is critical to ensure that the agreement is updated to reflect the needs of the internet economy." Goldman said the inclusion of the protection makes sense for both economics and free speech. "Section 230 is not just about free speech, it's about improving information flows in the marketplace," he said. "It creates new opportunities for entrepreneurs to build businesses and also creates opportunities for marketplaces to be more efficient."

US debate on internet liabilty spills over to global trade deals

Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton clashed on abortion rights on Wednesday as they opened their third and last U.S. presidential debate with a substantive policy discussion on the Supreme Court and the top issues it faces.

In contrast to the fiery personal attacks of the first two debates, Clinton and Trump had a sharp but issues-based exchange on abortion, gun rights and immigration to start the 90-minute showdown.

Clinton promised to appoint justices who would uphold a woman&#39;s right to abortion laid out in the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision, while Trump promised to appoint what he called &quot;pro-life&quot; justices who would overturn the decision.

Under current law, Trump said, &quot;You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.&quot;

&quot;Honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said, doing that as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth,&quot; Trump said.

Clinton said Trump&#39;s &quot;scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.&quot;

&quot;This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family has to make and I do not believe the government should be making it,&quot; Clinton said.

Trump said he would appoint a Supreme Court justice who would protect American gun rights.

He has said in the past that Clinton wants to &ldquo;essentially abolish&rdquo; the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing a right to bear arms.

Clinton said she supports gun rights, but wants additional regulations on guns, citing examples of children being hurt or killed in gun accidents. &ldquo;I see no conflict between saving people&rsquo;s lives and defending the Second Amendment.&rdquo;

No handshake

Clinton and Trump walked straight to their podiums when they were introduced at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, forgoing the traditional handshake as they did at the second debate last week in St. Louis, Missouri.

Trump seeks to reverse his fading momentum in a U.S. election that opinion polls show is tilting away from him.

The New York businessman, 70, has been damaged by several accusations he groped women - which he denies - and concerns about his claims the election will be rigged against him.

The debate gave Trump, making his first run for elected office, perhaps his best remaining chance to sway the dwindling number of Americans who are still undecided about their vote in the Nov. 8 election.

Clinton, a 68-year-old former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady, leads in national polls and in most of the battleground states where the election will likely be decided. The debate was her opportunity to make a closing argument on why she is best suited to succeed her fellow Democrat, President Barack Obama, in the White House.

Trump&#39;s White House bid has been marked by personal squabbles and controversial comments about immigration and minorities. Most recently, he has urged supporters to patrol polling places in inner cities to prevent voter fraud, and tried to fight off several allegations that he groped women.

Clinton has struggled to get past concerns about transparency raised over her use of a private email server for work communication while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

(AFP)

The two also declined shaking hands, an indication of their mutual disdain for each other

Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton clashed on abortion rights on Wednesday as they opened their third and last U.S. presidential debate with a substantive policy discussion on the Supreme Court and the top issues it faces. In contrast to the fiery personal attacks of the first two debates, Clinton and Trump had a sharp but issues-based exchange on abortion, gun rights and immigration to start the 90-minute showdown. Clinton promised to appoint justices who would uphold a woman's right to abortion laid out in the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision, while Trump promised to appoint what he called "pro-life" justices who would overturn the decision. Under current law, Trump said, "You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby." "Honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said, doing that as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth," Trump said. Clinton said Trump's "scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate." "This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family has to make and I do not believe the government should be making it," Clinton said. Trump said he would appoint a Supreme Court justice who would protect American gun rights. He has said in the past that Clinton wants to “essentially abolish” the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing a right to bear arms. Clinton said she supports gun rights, but wants additional regulations on guns, citing examples of children being hurt or killed in gun accidents. “I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.” No handshake Clinton and Trump walked straight to their podiums when they were introduced at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, forgoing the traditional handshake as they did at the second debate last week in St. Louis, Missouri. Trump seeks to reverse his fading momentum in a U.S. election that opinion polls show is tilting away from him. The New York businessman, 70, has been damaged by several accusations he groped women - which he denies - and concerns about his claims the election will be rigged against him. The debate gave Trump, making his first run for elected office, perhaps his best remaining chance to sway the dwindling number of Americans who are still undecided about their vote in the Nov. 8 election. Clinton, a 68-year-old former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady, leads in national polls and in most of the battleground states where the election will likely be decided. The debate was her opportunity to make a closing argument on why she is best suited to succeed her fellow Democrat, President Barack Obama, in the White House. Trump's White House bid has been marked by personal squabbles and controversial comments about immigration and minorities. Most recently, he has urged supporters to patrol polling places in inner cities to prevent voter fraud, and tried to fight off several allegations that he groped women. Clinton has struggled to get past concerns about transparency raised over her use of a private email server for work communication while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. (AFP)

US presidential debate: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump battle it out over gun control, abortion

us-debate

Us Debate, News on Us Debate, stories on Us Debate, articles on Us Debate, Us Debate stories at Wion, Us Debate news, Us Debate latest news

us debate