Clarence Thomas Takes Another Swipe at Big Tech’s Section 230 Immunity

BREITBART ^ | 8 Mar 2022 | Allum Bokhari

[Baladas]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took another warning shot at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) today, the law that grants Big Tech wide legal immunity to host and censor content at will.

In April last year, Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court, in the absence of action by Congress, might have to narrow the protections of Section 230 in an appropriate case.

Section 230 of the CDA is integral to the business model of major tech platforms because it ensures they are not held legally liable for the billions of items of user-generated content hosted by them.

It also confers immunity on platforms for removing or moderating content — a less necessary protection, as control over the filtering of content can be headed over to users through block buttons and optional filters without threatening the business models of social media platforms

[Baladas]

long overdue

[Jeff Chandler]

If 230 protection is lifted, FR will have to disable any images in its content.

[ClearCase_guy]

I am not aware of the intricacies. Why would that be necessary?

[dila813]

230 Reforms the Dems that they are pushing is a way for the government to introduce first government amendment controls (censoring), blatantly unconstitutional

[dayglored]

I don't understand why that would be necessary (disabling images).

FR does not host images itself, so all images are "hot-linked" from their original source locations, but that's not a 230 issue.

[dayglored]

Also, FR reserves the right to remove objectionable comments, posts, threads, images, etc. because it’s a privately owned/operated site. So what’s the problem?

[AndyTheBear]

There is a real difference between platforms and forums that has to be hashed out and codified in any reasonable approach to what 230 tried to do and messed up. Platforms would be things that are de facto public squares where anything should go vs forums which are like clubs with members setting rules. Kind of like reddit as a platform vs all the subreddit forums.

[Arcadian Empire]

Clarence Thomas deserves to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[TheConservativeTejano]

230 Reforms the Dems that they are pushing is a way for the government to introduce first government amendment controls (censoring), blatantly unconstitutional

I am pretty many of us have been censured by the MSM but this will never ever happen.

It is Unconstitutional and it will never pass unless we get the liberals to control Congress and let me tell you some important news "This will never happen" because the liberals have too many "Giant Sixth Grade Brain" liberals and we can all see this.

[Jeff Chandler]

If Section 230 immunity is lifted, any copyrighted image, whether hotlinked or not, that is posted without permission from the owner leaves the website owner liable to damages.

There is an entire industry devoted to tracking down copyright violations and extracting money from the “offenders”. Remove Section 230 immunity and it’s Katy bar the door.

Honestly, if I were running FR, I would institute an htaccess rule preventing unauthorized images immediately, even without the change in the law.

[Jeff Chandler]

It is Unconstitutional

How so?

[dayglored]

> If Section 230 immunity is lifted, any copyrighted image, whether hotlinked or not, that is posted without permission from the owner leaves the website owner liable to damages. There is an entire industry devoted to tracking down copyright violations and extracting money from the “offenders”. Remove Section 230 immunity and it’s Katy bar the door. Honestly, if I were running FR, I would institute an htaccess rule preventing unauthorized images immediately, even without the change in the law.

Hmmm, interesting.

First, I note that FR has an existing standing rule that no Getty Images may be posted. And on FR's home page (https://freerepublic.com/home.htm) the section "Official DMCA Copyright Infringement Notification" states the requirement for:

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed (Note that under Section 512(f) any person who knowingly and materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages. In other words, DON'T MAKE FALSE CLAIMS!

So while it's possible that FR might get notices from others besides Getty, the likelihood of it becoming a major problem to the point you describe ("FR will have to disable any images in its content") is vanishingly small. That's because there are probably a 100 million other sites that will have the same "problem", and they're not all going to stop posting images. Copyright owners who are sufficiently motivated to generate take-downs are mostly already doing so, like Getty. Not many more will start, because it's a huge PITA.

At least, that's how I see it. Time will tell.

[Jeff Chandler]

There are companies who patrol the Internet like digital sharks, searching for copyright infringements. When their bots find one, they send out legal notices and squeeze money out of the offenders. They offer their services to any creators, not only big companies like Getty Images. Any photographer can sign up.

The penalties allowed by law run into the tens of thousands per incident. Fighting these predatory law firms can be quite costly, even if you agree on a settlement.

It’s a racket, but a dangerous one.

[dayglored]

You are correct in your assertion. Let us hope that FR somehow avoids getting hit (too badly) by such activity.

I mean, what would FR threads be, without the occasional appearance of Helen Thomas photos, and the "Geez, Not This Sh*t Again" guy?

[TheConservativeTejano]

It is not constitutional to legislate from the bench is all I meant.

A judge is not elected so it is unconstitutional to legislate from the bench and this is what I meant.