Posted on 12/02/2020 7:23:13 AM PST by semimojo
On Monday, Vice reported that the New Yorker suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin because he exposed himself on a company Zoom call. While the infamous "incident" has sparked conversations about appropriate conduct during virtual meetings, the indiscretion is also extremely relevant to the debate regarding social media regulation and Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.
Revealing one's self in a work setting can invariably lead to lawsuits. And if lawsuits are filed, Toobin, rather than Zoom, should be liable. Zoom likely had no knowledge of the incident until it was reported, nor did Zoom have anything to do with his actions. Toobin is also not an employee of Zoom. It is this same principle that Section 230 protects: that platforms should not be liable for content published by users. But platforms are liable for their own content that they publish, such as tweets from @Twitter or any static pages on Facebook.com created by Facebook.
Furthermore, if Section 230 protections were removed, that would mean that websites would face liability for all user content if they moderated any user content. Websites would then moderate nothing, so they're not liable, or they would moderate so much that users would face massive barriers to posting. If conservatives think that too much of their content is being censored now, just wait until Facebook becomes liable for everything its users post.
Some people incorrectly think Section 230 only applies to platforms that moderate in a viewpoint or partisan-neutral way. That is factually incorrect. Some think it ought to only apply in those circumstances. That is unwise, particularly for conservatives — do we really want the government determining what is viewpoint-neutral?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Did anyone record the conference call Jeffrey was on?
Without Zoom nobody could see the evidence.......
Did someone Zoom in to Jeffy’s tube?...............
This is not analogous at at all. Zoom is more akin to a video telephone - not a public publisher. Once a social media platform makes a decision that it will allow only certain opinions or starts characterizing specific opinions in a certain way it becomes a publisher and should face the same rules as any other publisher.
I hear you but that's a big part of the problem. As written 230 applies to "interactive computer services" of which Zoom is one.
The complication is writing legislation defining exactly who it does or should apply to without impacting forums like FR that no one thinks should be liable for what their users post.
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.