3 ms·

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history > The Cox-Wyden Amendment: Section 230 > Worried a

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history > The Cox-Wyden Amendment: Section 230 > Worried about the future of free speech online and responding directly to Stratton Oakmont, Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act that would end up becoming Section 230. The amendment specifically made sure that "providers of an interactive computer service" would not be treated as publishers of third-party content. Unlike publications like newspapers that are accountable for the content they print, online services would be relieved of this liability. Section 230 had two purposes: the first was to "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it; the other was to allow online services to implement their own standards for policing content and provide for child safety. Seeing the crucial importance of the amendment, the House passed it 420-4. "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," as one judge put it" is being forgotten by a lot of comments here. EDIT: I seem to get downvoted on anything remotely political on HN. So I am glad this EO was passed and hoping it gets enforced.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cthalupa 6y ago
What's interesting is we're both reading "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," and my take on it is that yes, section 230 is there to explicitly protect Twitter under this circumstance, and you take it as giving Trump the ability to censor them. Thankfully, one of the authors of the section in question has actually stated exactly what it means: https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456 https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456 "As the co-author of Section 230, let me make this clear: there is nothing in the law about political neutrality. It does not say companies like Twitter are forced to carry misinformation about voting, especially from the president."
- busymom0 6y ago
  Why did you ignore the part that the amendment was written by 2 people - Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) Somehow you only quoted what the Democrat says but not what the Republican says. Quite dishonest of you.
  - cthalupa 6y ago
    Because Chris Cox hasn't said anything about the issue. They co-authored the bill. They almost certainly had similar aims when doing so. If there is no indication the other party has any difference in opinion, has not spoken out to disagree with the party mentioned, and there is no real reason to believe there would be a difference in opinion, why should I not be allowed to quote the only explanation from an authoritative party on the matter? The answer is that that's perfectly allowable and that I am not being dishonest.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cthalupa 6y ago

What's interesting is we're both reading "encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet," and my take on it is that yes, section 230 is there to explicitly protect Twitter under this circumstance, and you take it as giving Trump the ability to censor them. Thankfully, one of the authors of the section in question has actually stated exactly what it means: https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456 https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456 "As the co-author of Section 230, let me make this clear: there is nothing in the law about political neutrality. It does not say companies like Twitter are forced to carry misinformation about voting, especially from the president."

busymom0 6y ago
Why did you ignore the part that the amendment was written by 2 people - Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) Somehow you only quoted what the Democrat says but not what the Republican says. Quite dishonest of you.
- cthalupa 6y ago
  Because Chris Cox hasn't said anything about the issue. They co-authored the bill. They almost certainly had similar aims when doing so. If there is no indication the other party has any difference in opinion, has not spoken out to disagree with the party mentioned, and there is no real reason to believe there would be a difference in opinion, why should I not be allowed to quote the only explanation from an authoritative party on the matter? The answer is that that's perfectly allowable and that I am not being dishonest.