6 ms·

> Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? The line is "imminent lawless action" [1], with case law clarifying that "advo

> Where is the line for you when a threat of violence is equivalent to violence? The line is "imminent lawless action" [1], with case law clarifying that "advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" is not considered "imminent" (and therefore protected free speech). It's a pretty clear line, and one that most of the censored material being discussed objectively does not cross. Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are within their rights as private companies to enforce content rules as they wish, but these recent censorship actions have strong implications as to their protections under Section 230, and are alarming insofar as they represent a trend that crosses the line of free speech protections normally recognized by the government and content platforms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

slg 6y ago
I wasn't asking you a legal question. We all know that QAnon isn't literally illegal. I was asking you a series of moral questions, many of which can't be answered with "imminent lawless action". For example, is it considered a "thoughtcrime" if the danger isn't imminent? If someone is working on detailed plans to kill the president, but the plan would take multiple years, should this person be stopped or should they be allowed to continue their plans until the danger is imminent?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are within their rights as private companies to enforce content rules as they wish, but these recent censorship actions have strong implications as to their protections under Section 230, No, they don't; 230 exists to promote censorship, it does not involve a bar to it. > and are alarming insofar as they represent a trend that crosses the line of free speech protections normally recognized by the government and content platforms. They aren't the government, and there has never been a set of free speech protections “normally recognized by content platforms”, especially since 230 was adopted specifically to remove legal disincentives to active moderation.
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  I never stated or implied that Section 230 barred censorship. It does, however, protect service providers from the liability that a publisher would take on for publishing content that otherwise should be censored. As these companies voluntarily embrace more censorship, they are calling into question their status as "service providers" since they are effectively operating as publishers; i.e., not protected under 230. > there has never been a set of free speech protections “normally recognized by content platforms” I agree; legally there hasn't been anything like that, but in the past, those platforms were demonstrably more reluctant to censor political content (e.g., views that didn't align with the company's political views) because they knew that more active involvement might jeopardize their classification as neutral platforms (along with their protections under 230 as described above). In effect, they stayed out of politics not by law, but out of fear of being forced to censor all content if they became "publishers". Now that machine learning has made the censoring part easier, they're less concerned about that happening. However, at the moment they want to have their cake and eat it too – controlling content as they wish while also enjoying the protections of 230.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >I never stated or implied that Section 230 barred censorship. It does, however, protect service providers from the liability that a publisher would take on for publishing content that otherwise should be censored. As these companies voluntarily embrace more censorship, they are calling into question their status as "service providers" since they are effectively operating as publishers; i.e., not protected under 230. No. That's not what section 230 says. There is no distinction in section 230 between "platform" and "publisher." This has been noted and detailed repeatedly in this discussion. Please see this[0] which will explain, in explicit detail, why you are wrong about section 230. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
    - curiousgeorgio 6y ago

slg 6y ago

I wasn't asking you a legal question. We all know that QAnon isn't literally illegal. I was asking you a series of moral questions, many of which can't be answered with "imminent lawless action". For example, is it considered a "thoughtcrime" if the danger isn't imminent? If someone is working on detailed plans to kill the president, but the plan would take multiple years, should this person be stopped or should they be allowed to continue their plans until the danger is imminent?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are within their rights as private companies to enforce content rules as they wish, but these recent censorship actions have strong implications as to their protections under Section 230, No, they don't; 230 exists to promote censorship, it does not involve a bar to it. > and are alarming insofar as they represent a trend that crosses the line of free speech protections normally recognized by the government and content platforms. They aren't the government, and there has never been a set of free speech protections “normally recognized by content platforms”, especially since 230 was adopted specifically to remove legal disincentives to active moderation.

curiousgeorgio 6y ago
I never stated or implied that Section 230 barred censorship. It does, however, protect service providers from the liability that a publisher would take on for publishing content that otherwise should be censored. As these companies voluntarily embrace more censorship, they are calling into question their status as "service providers" since they are effectively operating as publishers; i.e., not protected under 230. > there has never been a set of free speech protections “normally recognized by content platforms” I agree; legally there hasn't been anything like that, but in the past, those platforms were demonstrably more reluctant to censor political content (e.g., views that didn't align with the company's political views) because they knew that more active involvement might jeopardize their classification as neutral platforms (along with their protections under 230 as described above). In effect, they stayed out of politics not by law, but out of fear of being forced to censor all content if they became "publishers". Now that machine learning has made the censoring part easier, they're less concerned about that happening. However, at the moment they want to have their cake and eat it too – controlling content as they wish while also enjoying the protections of 230.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >I never stated or implied that Section 230 barred censorship. It does, however, protect service providers from the liability that a publisher would take on for publishing content that otherwise should be censored. As these companies voluntarily embrace more censorship, they are calling into question their status as "service providers" since they are effectively operating as publishers; i.e., not protected under 230. No. That's not what section 230 says. There is no distinction in section 230 between "platform" and "publisher." This has been noted and detailed repeatedly in this discussion. Please see this[0] which will explain, in explicit detail, why you are wrong about section 230. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago