Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Supreme Court takes on Section 230
TechCrunch ^

Posted on 10/04/2022 4:49:10 AM PDT by FarCenter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: FarCenter

“or otherwise objectionable” for example is rather vague.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]


21 posted on 10/04/2022 9:16:42 AM PDT by FarCenter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FarCenter

“this section of the law essentially says that as long as reasonable measures are taken to address illegal and objectionable material on their platforms, companies like Alphabet and Meta cannot be held accountable for that material”

That’s not quite what it says. It says if they choose to act as platforms, rather than publishers, then they only need to regulate for illegal or objectionable (subject to vague ‘community standards’) material. However, if they choose to act as publishers and exert editorial control, then they are liable.

These platforms have been acting like publishers, but using the excuse that their editorial acts are not really editorial, by inventing new categories of “objectionable material” that just coincidentally match with the political agenda they want to push.


22 posted on 10/04/2022 9:44:03 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Seems to me the lawsuit is about google NOT censoring information from ISIS. The statute protects google from censoring information that falls into certain categories.


23 posted on 10/04/2022 6:16:35 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Seems to me the lawsuit is about google NOT censoring information from ISIS. The statute protects google from censoring information that falls into certain categories.


24 posted on 10/04/2022 9:25:17 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson