4 ms·

> The press can be held liable for false claims by those they affect. For example, Nick Sandman was able to sue CNN for the Covington coverage, and settle, beca

> The press can be held liable for false claims by those they affect. For example, Nick Sandman was able to sue CNN for the Covington coverage, and settle, because CNN was liable for publishing incorrect information. However, if CNN has a comments section on their website, they aren't liable for the posts made by random people in the comments, even if they moderate those comments. They have the same section 230 protections as twitter. > Whereas, twitter claims to not be a publisher or part of the press, but instead relies on being a platform or utility like a telephone, to avoid this kind of legal liability. If the content of the "Fact Check" posted by twitter is illegal (e.g. libel), Trump could sue them in court for libel and win damages, regardless of Section 230. Section 230 protects twitter from liability for its' USERS posts, not for the posts twitter itself makes. @jack can be sued for anything illegal he posts on twitter, twitter the company can be sued for anything they post on @Twitter that is illegal. Any lawsuit against the fact check would be laughed out of court of course as its clearly protected political opinion, and corporations have 1st Amendment rights to express their political opinions (see Citizens United).

tathougies 6y ago
> However, if CNN has a comments section on their website, they aren't liable for the posts made by random people in the comments, even if they moderate those comments. They have the same section 230 protections as twitter. Moderation (in the form of removal) is much different from modifying the content of the post, even if to provide 'fact-checking'. I'm fine with twitter removing the president, I don't see why they should have to host him. But they are desperate for anyone to actually use their website, so... > If the content of the "Fact Check" posted by twitter is illegal (e.g. libel), Trump could sue them in court for libel and win damages, regardless of Section 230. I'm not a legal expert, so if this is the case, that's great! From what I read, the executive order supposedly made this legal, but if it already was, then props to the legislature for making it legal, and props to the president for not expanding executive power and just reiterating what congress and the courts have already made law.

tathougies 6y ago

> However, if CNN has a comments section on their website, they aren't liable for the posts made by random people in the comments, even if they moderate those comments. They have the same section 230 protections as twitter. Moderation (in the form of removal) is much different from modifying the content of the post, even if to provide 'fact-checking'. I'm fine with twitter removing the president, I don't see why they should have to host him. But they are desperate for anyone to actually use their website, so... > If the content of the "Fact Check" posted by twitter is illegal (e.g. libel), Trump could sue them in court for libel and win damages, regardless of Section 230. I'm not a legal expert, so if this is the case, that's great! From what I read, the executive order supposedly made this legal, but if it already was, then props to the legislature for making it legal, and props to the president for not expanding executive power and just reiterating what congress and the courts have already made law.