3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.