3 ms·
This may not be effective and may not stand up to a court challenge. But it's the first in a salvo. Watch to see the kinds of arguments big tech is forced to m
by chmod600 5y ago
This may not be effective and may not stand up to a court challenge. But it's the first in a salvo.
Watch to see the kinds of arguments big tech is forced to make when they fight this law. Those arguments will be used against them later.
FB, et al., enjoy immunity (criminal and civil) from the illegal stuff their users post, and that is their weakness. There is nothing in the Constitution ensuring that they keep that immunity (or at least the First Amendment hasn't been interpreted to say that yet).
It's actually similar to how the PLCAA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerc...) protects gun manufacturers from being sued into oblivion. Rights don't mean much when exercising them means you will get buried in frivilous suits.
- Workaccount2 5y agoClaiming they "enjoy immunity" against illegal stuff posted on their websites is like claiming that you "enjoy immunity" against illegal stuff that shows up in your physical mailbox. It's not enjoying, its sensical.
- chmod600 5y agoThat's the same as the argument for the PLCAA, which has been under direct attack for a while and may get changed. Laws can change, and section 230 is not the only possible "sensical" one. The First Amendment is a big rock to hide behind. But there are other avenues of attack that are clearly possible. Those attacks will happen when people feel that the spirit of free speech is truly being threatened, where politicians can't effectively reach even people who want to hear from them. Edited for clarity.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]