Posted on 02/19/2023 7:00:40 PM PST by Golden Eagle
The Supreme Court faces the challenge of trying to manage the unmanageable on Tuesday when it hears a case that could drastically change the functioning of social media platforms. The case is Gonzalez v. Google and it deals with whether tech platforms can be legally liable for content posted, even from third parties.
Social media giants have created a “wild west” atmosphere over the years, where tons of crazy and potentially dangerous material circulate in the “virtual marketplace of ideas.” Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, however, provides broad protections for these platforms from legal liability for the content posted. Basically, platforms are not considered publishers in the traditional sense, and thus not liable for content circulating on their sites.
The platforms have exploited these protections by washing their hands from certain kinds of content, such as terrorist ISIS videos posted on YouTube. That is the basis for the Gonzalez suit against Google, the conglomerate of which YouTube is a part. At the same time, however, tech platforms are happy to jump in to restrict content the social media giants don’t support, such as the Hunter Biden laptop story or concerns about COVID vaccines. The court will hear a related case on Wednesday: Twitter v. Taamneh raises the question of aiding-and-abetting terrorism on on-line platforms through insufficient moderation practices.
The assessment of Section 230 by the Supreme Court is overdue. Justice Clarence Thomas has been itching to confront this matter, and last fall encouraged his colleagues to “address the proper scope of immunity under Section 230 in an appropriate case.” The court, in taking up the Gonzalez case, apparently now has that appropriate case, but also now has the enormous challenge of providing guidance for how tech platforms will function in the future. Should the court rule that tech platforms can, indeed, be held accountable for third party content, operating such sites could get very expensive to manage. The platforms would be exposed to legal hassles at every turn. The logistics and expense of content moderation would also jump exponentially.
There is also the concern that tech companies would have their free expression rights diminished as they are forced to tighten content restrictions beyond discretion normally assumed for communicators. Such overprotection could chill the free speech atmosphere of the tech giants, causing them to take down or limit otherwise constitutionally protected speech. That would also chill speech for social media participants as well. SCOTUS, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has over the years generally supported robust freedom of expression in its decisions. It has protected the free expression of corporations and the free speech rights of protesters, even at soldiers’ funerals. It has protected filmmakers who produce videos showing animal cruelty and producers of violent video games who market to teens. The court even protected an estranged husband who posted social media threats against his wife. But today’s SCOTUS features four new justices from those seated for the earlier rulings, and public confidence in the management of social media has suffered in recent years.
Where are the bassturds going to get the authority to do so. The Internet is not in the Constitution.
The question is who is responsible for offensive content posted on social media or similar websites - the poster, the hosting site, or both.
I think keeping it primarily the liability of the poster, makes the most sense, so long as the hosting site removes blatantly offensive or copyrighted material in a responsible amount of time. Those variables may need to be set, but I wouldn’t do much more to hold the hosting site responsible for the inane actions of their users.
The two cases seem to present quite a conundrum:
#1) If I allow you to say anything you want to say,
do I have any liability for what you say?
#2) If I restrict what you can or cannot say,
am I prohibiting your right to free speech?
Well, that’s the game they’re playing. Can’t have it both ways.
Or not, we’ll see.
You left out the really big deal -
3. If I restrict or edit what is said on my platform, does that make me liable for what I allow to be posted?
Great analysis!
if anybody can say anything they want then you end up with 4chan ... and I’m OK with that ...
The interstate commerce clause
It seems to me that it all boils down to something like:
“who” is responsible to decide
“what” is acceptable to say and
“what” is not acceptable to say?
I think that if hosts of content actively edit that which isn’t offensive or pornographic, it makes them an editor and publisher. Under Section 230, publishers are liable for content.
According to whom or what?
Agreed.
My rule of thumb on Instagram is should this be seen by
Minors? What is done on private pages, isn’t quite as
bad. They should screen, but you can’t make them.
I run into reels on the main feed that are just way over
the top offensive. I can take about anything, but it’s just
the way they do it. I don’t want to run into that stuff
without meaning to. I don’t ever mean to.
Kids don’t need to run into some of this baser stuff.
It’s so brutal some of it, it’s destructive for kids.
I don’t run into this stuff all the time, but it’s not
all that infrequent.
When I run into it, I report it. Then I ask not to see
that person’s content again.
I don’t recommend they be banished, but in one instance
it was so ripe they did toss the person off the forum.
According to rules that are 1) Clearly and specifically spelled out, 2) Presented to you and agreed to by you prior to your posting, and 3) Agreed to and approved by the courts. That's about the only way I can see this thing working. Even then, there will be some arguing back and forth, but hopefully this will allow the disputes to be minimal and manageable.
whether tech platforms can be legally liable for content posted, even from third parties.
Isn’t this what Section 230 is about? Isn’t this why Pres Trump wanted to get roses if it?
Given that most of congress is the hip pockets of the tech industry, isn’t this why it blocked PresTrump from getting rid of Sec230?
Isn’t this what Cruz went after Zuckerberg during one of those hearings?
After mulling this over in my mind for a while...
Assuming this:
“You” have the right to say anything you want to say
in a public place, on your “soapbox” in the town square...
BUT,
“I” have the right to not allow you to do that on my private property.
The question seems to be:
are social media sites like twitter, youtube, etc.
“public places” or “private places”?
The Supreme Court could decide to use the same term they created
in order to resolve the civil rights issue back in the ‘60’s
by saying these sites “provide for a public accommodation”.
I’m afraid the regulators will only make the problem worse.
bkmk
The Hill sucks. Period.
Leftist garbage.
The arbitrary censorship must end.
The State Department, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the DOJ, the DOD, the rest of the alphabet garbage must STOP censoring US citizens. And stop making up false charges to persecute/prosecute their political enemies.
It is Time to Restore the Constitution.
It is TIME to #DownSize_DC!
Cut the budget of every agency in 1/2. Fire the B Tards at the top. Then lets see what happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.