3 ms·

There is literally no "judicial precedent" for a website owner being disallowed from moderating user-submitted content. What are you talking about?

• Alex3917 10y ago
  There actually are lots of safe harbor protections for common carriers. Lack of editorial oversight is why sites like YouTube can qualify for these protections, but sites like Gawker wouldn't be able to. (Even though they ultimately got shut down for ignoring a court order or whatever.)
  • ceejayoz 10y ago
    YouTube still takes down videos, comments, channels, etc., and restricts others by age/country/etc.
    • Bartweiss 10y ago
      Sure, but that's within safe harbor rules. If they went and moderated content and comments in a non-reactive way, say by banning commenters whose opinions they found incorrect, that would be legal but could jeopardize their safe harbor status.
      • ebrenes 10y ago
        YouTube completely censors material, here's a list of the actions they've undertaken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_YouTube And as it states there, they also have censorship based on their terms of service, where they prohibit the posting of videos which violate copyrights or depict pornography, illegal acts, gratuitous violence, or hate speech.