5 ms·

You can definitely have different opinions on what you think the law should say, but you're misrepresenting what section 230 is for. I can't find that Ninth Ci

You can definitely have different opinions on what you think the law should say, but you're misrepresenting what section 230 is for. I can't find that Ninth Circuit rulling you're referring to. The closest I can find is Barnes v. Yahoo! where the court ruled a company can't be compelled under the CDA to ban someone. In that ruling the Ninth circuit said that congress wanted to “promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet and to encourage voluntary monitoring for offensive or obscene material.”. I can't find a ruling that says the intention of section 230 was to enforce unfettered free speech. Rather as I understand it section 230 is there to protect companies who want to publish a myriad of opinions by clarifying that it is the user who is liable for what they say, not the company that runs the website

syshum 6y ago
>>I can't find that Ninth Circuit rulling you're referring to. Batzel v. Smith [1][2] >>Rather as I understand it section 230 is there to protect companies who want to publish a myriad of opinions by clarifying that it is the user who is liable for what they say, not the company that runs the website The 2 congressmen that created the law are on record talking about how they did not want speech on the internet to be stifled because of legal liabilities if they moderated some content, the primary justification/rhetoric at the time like most laws designed to allow censorship/moderation was "think of the children, children might see some boobs or franks and be scared for life" "The broad language of Section 230’s protection reflects the intent to protect the industry and its users’ ability to communicate freely." [1] It was not conceived at the time of the Sections passage the internet companies would start to bann their "users" or "customers" from the service for political speech, such a thing was really unheard of during that time in American History, it just was not done. Times have changed, the law needs to be updated to reflect the original intent of the law which was and is to expand not limit speech [1]https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the-record-on-section-230s-legislative-history-guest-blog-post.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the... [2]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16376502179767104974&q=%22batzel+v.+smith%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163765021797671...
- armada651 6y ago
  > Times have changed, the law needs to be updated to reflect the original intent of the law which was and is to expand not limit speech Section 230 is not limiting speech, these companies would've had the right to delete people's posts and ban users with or without section 230. The intent was to encourage free speech by telling companies: "Don't worry, you won't be held liable for posts from your users, but you do have a responsibility to moderate". Which you can argue they weren't liable for in the first place, because they only provided the platform not the speech. You can definitely argue for an expansion of section 230 into a new "opinion neutrality" law, but it is not the true intent of section 230 that you make it out to be.

syshum 6y ago

>>I can't find that Ninth Circuit rulling you're referring to. Batzel v. Smith [1][2] >>Rather as I understand it section 230 is there to protect companies who want to publish a myriad of opinions by clarifying that it is the user who is liable for what they say, not the company that runs the website The 2 congressmen that created the law are on record talking about how they did not want speech on the internet to be stifled because of legal liabilities if they moderated some content, the primary justification/rhetoric at the time like most laws designed to allow censorship/moderation was "think of the children, children might see some boobs or franks and be scared for life" "The broad language of Section 230’s protection reflects the intent to protect the industry and its users’ ability to communicate freely." [1] It was not conceived at the time of the Sections passage the internet companies would start to bann their "users" or "customers" from the service for political speech, such a thing was really unheard of during that time in American History, it just was not done. Times have changed, the law needs to be updated to reflect the original intent of the law which was and is to expand not limit speech [1]https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the-record-on-section-230s-legislative-history-guest-blog-post.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the... [2]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16376502179767104974&q=%22batzel+v.+smith%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163765021797671...

armada651 6y ago
> Times have changed, the law needs to be updated to reflect the original intent of the law which was and is to expand not limit speech Section 230 is not limiting speech, these companies would've had the right to delete people's posts and ban users with or without section 230. The intent was to encourage free speech by telling companies: "Don't worry, you won't be held liable for posts from your users, but you do have a responsibility to moderate". Which you can argue they weren't liable for in the first place, because they only provided the platform not the speech. You can definitely argue for an expansion of section 230 into a new "opinion neutrality" law, but it is not the true intent of section 230 that you make it out to be.