3 ms·

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

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?
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Propose legislation and then horse trade against other things people in their district care less about in order to get it passed. Speak a bunch of inconvenient words into the Congressional record the next time there is relevant legislation, which the courts use when interpreting the law. Slip the change into the next colossal must-pass omnibus bill that nobody reads.
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

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?
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Propose legislation and then horse trade against other things people in their district care less about in order to get it passed. Speak a bunch of inconvenient words into the Congressional record the next time there is relevant legislation, which the courts use when interpreting the law. Slip the change into the next colossal must-pass omnibus bill that nobody reads.

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.