Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Apr 6, 2021, 17:42
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 6, 2021, 17:42
Apr 6, 2021, 17:42
WaltC wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 17:08:
Section 230 only provides safe-harbor for sites if they refuse to edit/delete posts from the public without a valid reason, (ie, egregious profanity or threats of violence against named individuals, are valid reasons for deletion.) When FB and Twitter delete and tag posts with prejudicial descriptions--it's the most extreme kind of editing there is. Disagreeing with the opinion expressed is not a valid reason to delete a post on a 230 site. Both of these sites can be sued for violating 230--which is what any honest government would do--but so far no government entity has stepped up to enforce 230's safe-harbor restrictions on these two web sites--the Trump administration, included. They should be fined $100k a day for every post they delete & tag with supercilious warnings, imo--and eventually they'd get the message, I feel sure...;) Today, we have an unusually timid government in Washington when it comes to enforcing our laws. Never seen it this bad.

I get that posting rightwing falsehoods is your thing -- not exaggerations or distortions, but just straight up lies -- but this is public information that anyone can look up.


(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;

It specifically protects entities who do restrict content. There's nothing about entities who don't restrict content, except the blanket protection that shields providers such as ISPs, social media and message board hosts from liability for content they didn't create, regardless of whether or not they restrict content.
Apr 6, 12:50Apr 6 12:50
Apr 6, 13:23Apr 6 13:23
Apr 6, 14:45Apr 6 14:45
Apr 6, 15:20Apr 6 15:20
Apr 6, 17:08Apr 6 17:08
Apr 6, 17:42Apr 6 17:42
 Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Apr 7, 01:49Apr 7 01:49
Apr 7, 02:32Apr 7 02:32
Apr 7, 03:02Apr 7 03:02
Apr 6, 17:56Apr 6 17:56
Apr 6, 18:20Apr 6 18:20
Apr 6, 18:47Apr 6 18:47
Apr 6, 17:13Apr 6 17:13
Apr 7, 06:55Apr 7 06:55