>>§230 explicitly never limited criminal liability, Thank you for the correction. >>and arguably didn’t limit civil liability for knowingly distributing unlaw

>>§230 explicitly never limited criminal liability, Thank you for the correction. >>and arguably didn’t limit civil liability for knowingly distributing unlawful content Prior to FOSTA/SESTA, would a search engine be considered liable for knowingly distributing unlawful content? The 1st Circuit argued that was not the case[1] by citing Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley vs Roommates.com. Trafficking-related content would require inducement/incitement of action by the website (not mere advertisement, invitation or facilitation thereof) in order to be deemed unlawful. Trafficking-related content on a website was not, on its own, per se unlawful to distribute knowing or unknowingly. That was the case until Backpage's founders were indicted and FOSTA/SESTA was passed. >>And FOSTA-SESTA adds no-knowledge civil liability for owning, managing, or operating an information system with “reckless disregard of the fact that such conduct contributed to sex trafficking”. And this is the concerning bit I had in my last paragraph. [1]https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914f772add7b0493499537d https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914f772add7b049349953...