4 ms·

It says exactly that. Section 230(c)(1): No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any informatio

It says exactly that. Section 230(c)(1): No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So then be a publisher or content host but not both and then you don't need section 230 for protection at all, according to the letter of law. That said section 230 was intended to protect things like ISPs and email providers from frivolous lawsuits, but in practice primarily benefits online advertising companies and social media from valid lawsuits. Even if section 230 were to evaporate tomorrow Hacker News remains in no greater danger of lawsuits than any other medium currently not protected by section 230.

nobody9999 6y ago
>So then be a publisher or content host but not both and then you don't need section 230 for protection at all, according to the letter of law Really? Tell that to the judge who decided Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy[0]. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
- austincheney 6y ago
  Stratton was distinguished from an earlier Compuserve case due to content moderation and that is all the case is notable for. The case was never decided by a judge as Section 230 had gone into effect before judgement rendering any judgement moot. > It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. No, it only protects the web site, as a service provider. Users of the web sites are not protected by Section 230 and can still be sued. This has happened frequently in the past when the RIAA would sue users of various media sharing tools.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >No, it only protects the web site, as a service provider. Users of the web sites are not protected by Section 230 and can still be sued. This has happened frequently in the past when the RIAA would sue users of various media sharing tools. No. That's not true. Users are also protected when they repost third-party content by section 230. cf. Barrett v. Rosenthal[0]. No one is protected from being sued for first party content. Everyone is protected from being sued for hosting/reposting/sharing third-party content. However, if there are other (civil or criminal) legal issues (sharing copyrighted material for example), section 230 does not protect users, websites or other platforms. As section 230 plainly states[2]: "(1) No effect on criminal law Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute. (2) No effect on intellectual property law Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property. (3) State law Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section. (4) No effect on communications privacy law Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law. (5) No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit— (A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title; (B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or (C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted." You are wrong about Section 230. Please see here[1] for details. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal [1] 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... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Edit: Updated post to include reference to other legal liability.

nobody9999 6y ago

>So then be a publisher or content host but not both and then you don't need section 230 for protection at all, according to the letter of law Really? Tell that to the judge who decided Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy[0]. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

austincheney 6y ago
Stratton was distinguished from an earlier Compuserve case due to content moderation and that is all the case is notable for. The case was never decided by a judge as Section 230 had gone into effect before judgement rendering any judgement moot. > It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. No, it only protects the web site, as a service provider. Users of the web sites are not protected by Section 230 and can still be sued. This has happened frequently in the past when the RIAA would sue users of various media sharing tools.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >No, it only protects the web site, as a service provider. Users of the web sites are not protected by Section 230 and can still be sued. This has happened frequently in the past when the RIAA would sue users of various media sharing tools. No. That's not true. Users are also protected when they repost third-party content by section 230. cf. Barrett v. Rosenthal[0]. No one is protected from being sued for first party content. Everyone is protected from being sued for hosting/reposting/sharing third-party content. However, if there are other (civil or criminal) legal issues (sharing copyrighted material for example), section 230 does not protect users, websites or other platforms. As section 230 plainly states[2]: "(1) No effect on criminal law Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute. (2) No effect on intellectual property law Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property. (3) State law Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section. (4) No effect on communications privacy law Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law. (5) No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit— (A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title; (B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or (C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted." You are wrong about Section 230. Please see here[1] for details. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal [1] 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... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Edit: Updated post to include reference to other legal liability.