3 ms·

Folks, you can stop reading right here: > That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech

Folks, you can stop reading right here: > That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so. This is a factual distortion of what section 230 is, as noted in this article, submitted yesterday: 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...

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Actually you can't, because although that part of the article is wrong, they get to the real point after it.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  No, the entire rest of the argument rests on the claim that section 230 creates an inducement to moderate by removing liability. It does not. If anything, it creates an inducement to do the opposite, by removing liability for third party content.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The rest of the argument rests on the claim that government officials threatening to adversely modify Section 230 if companies don't engage in censorship the government itself could not require, is a constitutional violation.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Where are they making that claim? Every single case citation points toward the "section 230 creates an inducement to moderate." I saw some vague claims of sabre rattling about "regulation," but nothing about modifying 230.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        What did you interpret "regulation" to mean other than regulatory modification of existing law (i.e. Section 230)? > In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.” ... > As the Second Circuit held in Hammerhead Enterprises v. Brezenoff (1983), the test is whether “comments of a government official can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request.” Mr. Richmond’s comments, along with many others, easily meet that test. Notably, the Ninth Circuit held it didn’t matter whether the threats were the “real motivating force” behind the private party’s conduct; state action exists even if he “would have acted as he did independently.”
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Regulation is policy created by regulatory authorities. Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that one congresscritter's comments, in isolation, constitute a credible threat or inducement. And, if there really are "many others," maybe they should have included that in the article, rather than spending 80% of their space arguing the bogus "section 230 turns private action into state action" line.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that one congresscritter's comments, in isolation, constitute a credible threat or inducement. What would be the point in making the threat if it was not expected to have any effect?
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Don't ask me. People make ineffective threats all the time. Tell me: what can one congressional Representative do by him or her self?
  - rmk 6y ago
    The bulk of the article centers on whether, by enacting Section 230, the Government has rendered the actions of private companies into State Actions. State Actions that abridge free speech are forbidden vide the Norwood vs. Harrison (1973) decision of the Supreme Court.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Actually you can't, because although that part of the article is wrong, they get to the real point after it.

pmiller2 6y ago
No, the entire rest of the argument rests on the claim that section 230 creates an inducement to moderate by removing liability. It does not. If anything, it creates an inducement to do the opposite, by removing liability for third party content.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The rest of the argument rests on the claim that government officials threatening to adversely modify Section 230 if companies don't engage in censorship the government itself could not require, is a constitutional violation.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Where are they making that claim? Every single case citation points toward the "section 230 creates an inducement to moderate." I saw some vague claims of sabre rattling about "regulation," but nothing about modifying 230.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      What did you interpret "regulation" to mean other than regulatory modification of existing law (i.e. Section 230)? > In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.” ... > As the Second Circuit held in Hammerhead Enterprises v. Brezenoff (1983), the test is whether “comments of a government official can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request.” Mr. Richmond’s comments, along with many others, easily meet that test. Notably, the Ninth Circuit held it didn’t matter whether the threats were the “real motivating force” behind the private party’s conduct; state action exists even if he “would have acted as he did independently.”
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Regulation is policy created by regulatory authorities. Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that one congresscritter's comments, in isolation, constitute a credible threat or inducement. And, if there really are "many others," maybe they should have included that in the article, rather than spending 80% of their space arguing the bogus "section 230 turns private action into state action" line.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that one congresscritter's comments, in isolation, constitute a credible threat or inducement. What would be the point in making the threat if it was not expected to have any effect?
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Don't ask me. People make ineffective threats all the time. Tell me: what can one congressional Representative do by him or her self?
- rmk 6y ago
  The bulk of the article centers on whether, by enacting Section 230, the Government has rendered the actions of private companies into State Actions. State Actions that abridge free speech are forbidden vide the Norwood vs. Harrison (1973) decision of the Supreme Court.