4 ms·

I wonder, why did they use a First Amendment claim rather than something to do with safe harbour considerations (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act)?

I wonder, why did they use a First Amendment claim rather than something to do with safe harbour considerations (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... My understanding in this area is thin, but from what I understand the big tech media companies often claim limited or no liability for user generated content because of the above legal considerations. If so, and they then go on curate content, that would seem to be allowing them to accept the upside of being a publisher (a curated experience they can sell to customers and other stakeholders) without accepting the downside (liability for copyright infringement, slander and libel, etc.). I'm not sure why PragerU's legal team didn't push in this area rather than the admittedly dodgy First Amendment claim. edit: grammar.

UncleMeat 7y ago
This is exactly backwards. 230 does not say "you are safe if you moderate nothing but expose yourself to trouble if you moderate". It says "if you moderate, but not perfectly consistently, you are still protected from garbage on your platform".
- rkapsoro 7y ago
  Haha well that explains that then. Thanks.
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Because that's not a requirement of the law as written. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-cruz-demands-return-fairness-doctrine-which-he-has-mocked-past-due-to-misunderstanding-cda-230.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-c... It would have even less chance of flying in court than the first amendment claim, which at least has some precedent due to lawsuits about protests in malls.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Possibly because PragerU isn't actually good at this sort of thing. It's not like we should assume they understand law or how to hire lawyers who do. It turns out there's no law against attaching "University" as a title to your organization without any kind of vetting, bona fides, or accreditation.

UncleMeat 7y ago

This is exactly backwards. 230 does not say "you are safe if you moderate nothing but expose yourself to trouble if you moderate". It says "if you moderate, but not perfectly consistently, you are still protected from garbage on your platform".

rkapsoro 7y ago
Haha well that explains that then. Thanks.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

Because that's not a requirement of the law as written. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-cruz-demands-return-fairness-doctrine-which-he-has-mocked-past-due-to-misunderstanding-cda-230.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-c... It would have even less chance of flying in court than the first amendment claim, which at least has some precedent due to lawsuits about protests in malls.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Possibly because PragerU isn't actually good at this sort of thing. It's not like we should assume they understand law or how to hire lawyers who do. It turns out there's no law against attaching "University" as a title to your organization without any kind of vetting, bona fides, or accreditation.