3 ms·

I really don't know the answer to this so I'm not trying to trick you, really just trying to see how far Section 230 goes. If a Twitter user posts child porn (

I really don't know the answer to this so I'm not trying to trick you, really just trying to see how far Section 230 goes. If a Twitter user posts child porn (which is an example of an illegal act in the US), and Twitter knows that it is on the platform and does not remove the content, do you know if Twitter would therefore become liable for the content? (Again, this is more exploring Section 230, not about the specific controversy du jour.)

danShumway 6y ago
They would very likely be liable under SESTA/FOSTA, although I don't know how much precedent exists around that specific law right now. This is part of the reason why many adult sections on sites like Reddit/Craigslist were shut down after SESTA/FOSTA passed. The companies didn't want to risk extra liability in that area. Section 230 also wouldn't have necessarily protected them before SESTA/FOSTA either, federal criminal liability was always exempted. It's just that SESTA/FOSTA made that a lot more explicit and generally widened that liability. Section 230 isn't a blanket protection against literally anything (it also has a number of holes surrounding copyright). It's just a much broader protection than many people online think, and the areas where it doesn't protect platforms typically don't line up well with where Internet commenters think it shouldn't protect companies. IANAL, don't go out and do something stupid and then claim that I said it was legally OK. But in general a good heuristic for talking about Section 230 online is that it's, "not unlimited, but probably broader than you're thinking." But if you're trying to launch your own service or something and you want legal advice about where exactly the line is drawn, you should talk to an actual lawyer.
- jimkleiber 6y ago
  I love HN. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response.
root_axis 6y ago
> If a Twitter user posts child porn (which is an example of an illegal act in the US), and Twitter knows that it is on the platform and does not remove the content, do you know if Twitter would therefore become liable for the content? Section 230 isn't absolute, there are several specific exceptions. One example is the FOSTA law from 2017 which explicitly overrides Section 230. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 > The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that section 230 does not limit: (1) a federal civil claim for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, (2) a federal criminal charge for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, or (3) a state criminal charge for conduct that promotes or facilitates prostitution in violation of this bill. There are some other examples I'm not thinking of off the top of my head, but on a note directed more towards the general discussion, I'd point out that creating laws to limit the scope of Section 230 is illustrative of the kind of freedoms it affords site operators in the general case.
- jimkleiber 6y ago
  thank you!

danShumway 6y ago

They would very likely be liable under SESTA/FOSTA, although I don't know how much precedent exists around that specific law right now. This is part of the reason why many adult sections on sites like Reddit/Craigslist were shut down after SESTA/FOSTA passed. The companies didn't want to risk extra liability in that area. Section 230 also wouldn't have necessarily protected them before SESTA/FOSTA either, federal criminal liability was always exempted. It's just that SESTA/FOSTA made that a lot more explicit and generally widened that liability. Section 230 isn't a blanket protection against literally anything (it also has a number of holes surrounding copyright). It's just a much broader protection than many people online think, and the areas where it doesn't protect platforms typically don't line up well with where Internet commenters think it shouldn't protect companies. IANAL, don't go out and do something stupid and then claim that I said it was legally OK. But in general a good heuristic for talking about Section 230 online is that it's, "not unlimited, but probably broader than you're thinking." But if you're trying to launch your own service or something and you want legal advice about where exactly the line is drawn, you should talk to an actual lawyer.

jimkleiber 6y ago
I love HN. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response.

root_axis 6y ago

> If a Twitter user posts child porn (which is an example of an illegal act in the US), and Twitter knows that it is on the platform and does not remove the content, do you know if Twitter would therefore become liable for the content? Section 230 isn't absolute, there are several specific exceptions. One example is the FOSTA law from 2017 which explicitly overrides Section 230. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 > The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that section 230 does not limit: (1) a federal civil claim for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, (2) a federal criminal charge for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, or (3) a state criminal charge for conduct that promotes or facilitates prostitution in violation of this bill. There are some other examples I'm not thinking of off the top of my head, but on a note directed more towards the general discussion, I'd point out that creating laws to limit the scope of Section 230 is illustrative of the kind of freedoms it affords site operators in the general case.

jimkleiber 6y ago
thank you!