2 ms·

You clearly don't understand how [Administrative Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law) works,

You clearly don't understand how [Administrative Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law) works, which is understandable, because it's a complex morass. We have, largely, FDR to thank for this, with the creation of all of the alphabet soup agencies. Basically, Congress passes laws that grant powers to the Executive to ... execute .. the law and enforce it. These laws instruct the Executive Branch to write administrative policy which is then enforced -- this is the reason, for instance, that the Department of Education could unilaterally rescind the Obama era "Dear Colleague" letter. The laws that are passed, including Section 230 and the rest of the DMCA, grant the Administration broad powers to write policy from the law in places where the law is insufficiently defined. This is why the Section II/Section III reclassification (called "Net Neutrality" by its proponents, though the actual "Neutrality" is of course controversial) could be done unilaterally by Pai and it's the same reason that the FCC is open to re-interpret the law as written in order to write administrative policy. If Congress doesn't like the new policy, they can pass a new law that better defines the Executive's role in enforcing their law.

tzs 6y ago
That's only partially correct. Some laws that require executive action to interpret and enforce leave it up to executive agencies to fill in the details. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is one such law, which is why the FCC plays such a big role in net neutrality. Section 230 is not such a law. It creates a civil liability shield for interactive computer services and states who that applies to and how it is to be used. There is nothing in it for the Executive to execute. It is only executed when someone raises it as a defense in a court case, and it is the judiciary that decide what it means. The FCC can interpret it all they want, but that interpretation will be at best persuasive authority in any court case involving the application of 230.
- notankies 6y ago
  > it creates a civil liability shield for interactive computer services and states who that applies to and how it is to be used. Right, and the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law so the policy must define the limits until Congress acts to clarify the law. Hence the rulemaking. Facebook and Twitter's actions yesterday and the controversy over the role of 230 make the lack of clarity apparent. If Congress doesn't like the new administrative policy, allow them to clarify.
  - magicalist 6y ago
    > the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law Can you give an example limit you're imagining that would pass muster? To me > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected doesn't leave much to the imagination, and AFAIK courts have consistently backed that up.
  - tzs 6y ago
    The administration only has authority to make and enforce rules about a law to the extent that Congress delegated that authority to them. Sometimes Congress does so. E.g., the FCC was created by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1934, with the authority to make rules regarding various things specified in that law. If Congress does not so delegate such authority, interpreting the law is solely the job of the courts. They did not delegate such authority for section 230. Agencies do not get to just look at any random law that is outside the are they were given power over, decide it is not clear, and make an enforceable rule clarifying it.

tzs 6y ago

That's only partially correct. Some laws that require executive action to interpret and enforce leave it up to executive agencies to fill in the details. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is one such law, which is why the FCC plays such a big role in net neutrality. Section 230 is not such a law. It creates a civil liability shield for interactive computer services and states who that applies to and how it is to be used. There is nothing in it for the Executive to execute. It is only executed when someone raises it as a defense in a court case, and it is the judiciary that decide what it means. The FCC can interpret it all they want, but that interpretation will be at best persuasive authority in any court case involving the application of 230.

notankies 6y ago
> it creates a civil liability shield for interactive computer services and states who that applies to and how it is to be used. Right, and the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law so the policy must define the limits until Congress acts to clarify the law. Hence the rulemaking. Facebook and Twitter's actions yesterday and the controversy over the role of 230 make the lack of clarity apparent. If Congress doesn't like the new administrative policy, allow them to clarify.
- magicalist 6y ago
  > the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law Can you give an example limit you're imagining that would pass muster? To me > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected doesn't leave much to the imagination, and AFAIK courts have consistently backed that up.
- tzs 6y ago
  The administration only has authority to make and enforce rules about a law to the extent that Congress delegated that authority to them. Sometimes Congress does so. E.g., the FCC was created by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1934, with the authority to make rules regarding various things specified in that law. If Congress does not so delegate such authority, interpreting the law is solely the job of the courts. They did not delegate such authority for section 230. Agencies do not get to just look at any random law that is outside the are they were given power over, decide it is not clear, and make an enforceable rule clarifying it.