2 ms·
I'm actually saying that the safe harbor rationale exists because it was believed that completely regulating content was impossible. If this is not impossible,
by ameister14 8y ago
I'm actually saying that the safe harbor rationale exists because it was believed that completely regulating content was impossible.
If this is not impossible, then there should be no need for safe harbor.
Also, safe harbor has been used to defend not applying content policy; I'm not sure it's ever been used to defend the application of a content policy.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> I'm actually saying that the safe harbor rationale exists because it was believed that completely regulating content was impossible. Completely regulating content may be impossible (or, at least, a greater burden relative to other irreducible costs) in online media, and at least the latter if not the former is a premise of the CDA safe harbor. But since adopting and making best effort enforcement of a content policy does not require the ability to completely regulate content, site operators having a Constitutional right (as they clearly do) to adopt and enforce such a policy is not, in any way, inconsistent with the continued existence of the safe harbor.