4 ms·

> it protects your business model by preventing the courts from forcing you to remove that content. Well, than Section 230 is simply wrong. It's important not

by pif 10y ago

> it protects your business model by preventing the courts from forcing you to remove that content. Well, than Section 230 is simply wrong. It's important not to hold Yelp responsible for what a user wrote on his forum, but I fail to see how it can be damaging for a site to delete some unlawful-ruled content (which it didn't create), apart from the immoral case you named.

morgante 10y ago
The problem with that is that's putting Yelp into the position of censoring content. If the court thinks that a review is defamatory, they should just order the reviewer to take it down. No need to involve Yelp at all.
- lsaferite 10y ago
  You say that like Yelp doesn't already self-censor to suit it's business needs.
  - morgante 10y ago
    That's completely orthogonal. Yelp is not required to run a neutral public forum—they can institute whatever policies they want. The problem is when the government forces censorship, not when private companies have their own policies on what they'll host. Removing content from your own site is not censorship.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      > Self-censorship is not censorship. It really depends on what motivates the self-censorship.
      - nitrogen 10y ago
        Since this was downvoted, let me clarify: self-censorship motivated by threat of some kind is censorship.
    - lsaferite 10y ago
      They are only able to publish libelous user content and NOT be sued due to government extended protections. To then turn around and cry foul when a legal ruling of libel (against one of their users) includes a provision that they remove the libelous content is ridiculous.
    - pif 10y ago
      > when the government forces censorship Actually, in this case, it's the justice, not the government. At it makes a huge difference!
      - cowsandmilk 10y ago
        there are three branches of US government and the judiciary is one of them.
        pif 10y ago
        Sorry, I had read "government" as meaning "executive power". Anyway, I don't see any problem in having justice-sanctioned removal orders for unlawful posts.
- pif 10y ago
  > they should just order the reviewer to take it down What if the reviewer refuses? No matter the fine, no matter the years in jail they may spend, this will not fulfil the plaintiff's right to have that comment removed.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Sometimes remedies are imperfect. If someone is willing to spend the rest of their life in jail for contempt of court, that's not a reason to start looking for other methods of enforcement, that's a reason to be glad they're out of your life.
- pif 10y ago
  No, it's not Yelp censoring, it's the judge. Yelp has not been asked/permitted to choose for this ore other posts.
ci5er 10y ago
> Well, than Section 230 is simply wrong. Wrong as drafted, wrong as interpreted or wrong conceptually? Laws are what they are - there's really no right or wrong about them. > I fail to see how it can be damaging for a site to delete some unlawful-ruled content It's not damaging to remove it. It's damaging to be compelled to remove it. Handing the judiciary this tool to make such orders opens the door to all sorts of down-court mischief. If the goal is simply the effect in this one case, then order the poster to take it down and Section 230 stands unmolested. But that's not the goal, or it would be done that way already. The goal (for some parties) is handing the tool-to-compel to the judiciary.

by pif 10y ago

morgante 10y ago

The problem with that is that's putting Yelp into the position of censoring content. If the court thinks that a review is defamatory, they should just order the reviewer to take it down. No need to involve Yelp at all.

lsaferite 10y ago
You say that like Yelp doesn't already self-censor to suit it's business needs.
- morgante 10y ago
  That's completely orthogonal. Yelp is not required to run a neutral public forum—they can institute whatever policies they want. The problem is when the government forces censorship, not when private companies have their own policies on what they'll host. Removing content from your own site is not censorship.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    > Self-censorship is not censorship. It really depends on what motivates the self-censorship.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      Since this was downvoted, let me clarify: self-censorship motivated by threat of some kind is censorship.
  - lsaferite 10y ago
    They are only able to publish libelous user content and NOT be sued due to government extended protections. To then turn around and cry foul when a legal ruling of libel (against one of their users) includes a provision that they remove the libelous content is ridiculous.
  - pif 10y ago
    > when the government forces censorship Actually, in this case, it's the justice, not the government. At it makes a huge difference!
    - cowsandmilk 10y ago
      there are three branches of US government and the judiciary is one of them.
      - pif 10y ago
        Sorry, I had read "government" as meaning "executive power". Anyway, I don't see any problem in having justice-sanctioned removal orders for unlawful posts.
pif 10y ago
> they should just order the reviewer to take it down What if the reviewer refuses? No matter the fine, no matter the years in jail they may spend, this will not fulfil the plaintiff's right to have that comment removed.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Sometimes remedies are imperfect. If someone is willing to spend the rest of their life in jail for contempt of court, that's not a reason to start looking for other methods of enforcement, that's a reason to be glad they're out of your life.
pif 10y ago
No, it's not Yelp censoring, it's the judge. Yelp has not been asked/permitted to choose for this ore other posts.

ci5er 10y ago

> Well, than Section 230 is simply wrong. Wrong as drafted, wrong as interpreted or wrong conceptually? Laws are what they are - there's really no right or wrong about them. > I fail to see how it can be damaging for a site to delete some unlawful-ruled content It's not damaging to remove it. It's damaging to be compelled to remove it. Handing the judiciary this tool to make such orders opens the door to all sorts of down-court mischief. If the goal is simply the effect in this one case, then order the poster to take it down and Section 230 stands unmolested. But that's not the goal, or it would be done that way already. The goal (for some parties) is handing the tool-to-compel to the judiciary.