The 230 Rule... Hearings in the Senate

[Damocles]

Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[4]

The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
--------------------------------

Right now the Senate is holding hearings that can effect this site... It's disconcerting that some big names can f'ck up a good thing just by acting in what seems like bad faith and censoring only one side...

Bad juju...

[dukkha]

which section would not apply to JPP?

[Damocles]

which section would not apply to JPP?

If they drop the protections entirely to "punish" Twitter and Facebook for acting in bad faith then none of it would apply to JPP, our protections are at stake. That's the point.

[Bigdog]

Will Jack Dorsey's leftwing nazi style censorship on Twitter destroy Social Media platforms as we know them?

[dukkha]

If they drop the protections entirely to "punish" Twitter and Facebook for acting in bad faith then none of it would apply to JPP, our protections are at stake. That's the point.

think i follow you.But from what I know Section 230 would be modified to allow liable suits.. not dropped.. as far as I know..

It's super-complicated.. thanks for the heads up

[Damocles]

Will Jack Dorsey's nazi style censorship on Twitter destroy Social Media platforms as we know them?

This is exactly the question. But Facebook has some "wonderful" responsibility in this too.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[4]

The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
--------------------------------

Right now the Senate is holding hearings that can effect this site... It's disconcerting that some big names can f'ck up a good thing just by acting in what seems like bad faith and censoring only one side...

Bad juju...

The problem isn't that only one side is being censored. The problem is that one side THINKS they are the only ones being censored.

Interesting story today about that censorship. Facebook stated it would not allow new ads one week before the election. Trump campaign was allowed to post new ads after the deadline while old ads by groups supporting Biden were denied as if they were new. So much for Facebook only censoring conservatives.

Perhaps the problem is that one side breaks the rules more often than the other side. Breaking the rules gets you censored, not your politics.

[Earl]

Will Jack Dorsey's nazi style censorship on Twitter destroy Social Media platforms as we know them?

When they act as publishers and censor conservatives and content critical of liberals, they are not Social Media platforms and no longer eligible for Section 230 protections.

[Earl]

The problem isn't that only one side is being censored. The problem is that one side THINKS they are the only ones being censored.

Interesting story today about that censorship. Facebook stated it would not allow new ads one week before the election. Trump campaign was allowed to post new ads after the deadline while old ads by groups supporting Biden were denied as if they were new. So much for Facebook only censoring conservatives.

Perhaps the problem is that one side breaks the rules more often than the other side. Breaking the rules gets you censored, not your politics.

When the terrorist Iranian leader is not censored but the leader of the free world is, it’s a problem.

[Bigdog]

If they drop the protections entirely to "punish" Twitter and Facebook for acting in bad faith then none of it would apply to JPP, our protections are at stake. That's the point.

Let's hope they make a distinction between publicly traded corps and private entities.

[dukkha]

When the terrorist Iranian leader is not censored but the leader of the free world is, it’s a problem.

they need to cut it ALL out. put it all out in the market place of ideas.
Some asshat in Twitter STILL has the NYPost account locked!

[Jarod]

In my opinion...

A private company should have no liability for what others post on their platform. The poster is solely responsible for his content. The platform might be responsible for not allowing anonymous postings, or illegal content such as child pornography, but that's it. I also think a private company has no obligation to allow free speech.

The First Amendment and the 14th Amendment restrictions on government action do not apply to private companies.

No private company is required to provide a platform for others to say what they choose, and they are not required to provide equal protection of their rules.

[Jarod]

Let's hope they make a distinction between publicly traded corps and private entities.

Why should that matter?

[Earl]

In my opinion...

A private company should have no liability for what others post on their platform. The poster is solely responsible for his content. The platform might be responsible for not allowing anonymous postings, or illegal content such as child pornography, but that's it. I also think a private company has no obligation to allow free speech.

The First Amendment and the 14th Amendment restrictions on government action do not apply to private companies.

No private company is required to provide a platform for others to say what they choose, and they are not required to provide equal protection of their rules.

Stop with the intentional obtuseness...I hope it’s intentional.

The First Amendment is not the issue.

When Twitter accepts government protections under the FCC Section 230. They are no longer private companies, private platforms...they are publishers.

You know this.

At least I hope you do.

[Jarod]

Stop with the intentional obtuseness...I hope it’s intentional.

The First Amendment is not the issue.

When Twitter accepts government protections under the FCC Section 230. They are no longer private companies, private platforms...they are publishers.

You know this.

At least I hope you do.

Publishers do not have the right to publish what they chose? And not publish what they don't?