4 ms·

My guess as a legal amateur: If it's opinion, then Facebook's actions are protected by the First Amendment. So while they may not internally view it as "nothi

My guess as a legal amateur: If it's opinion, then Facebook's actions are protected by the First Amendment. So while they may not internally view it as "nothing more than opinion" they are willing to argue this in court. Everyone likes to win their court cases. This is part of a defamation case. Defamation cases are hard to win in the US because of the First Amendment.

beerandt 5y ago
It's a little bit different here since there's an actual editorial response, and not just removal or similar. The whole reason facebook has 3rd parties do the factchecks is so it can claim that it isn't responsible for the factcheck content. They're basically trying to game the system to get all the benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher, even if it's by way of selecting which 3rd parties it defers this defacto editorial power to. I think if they wanted to claim freespeech here, it would amount to an (at least partial) admission that they are responsible for the content, which afaiu would make them subject to libel. It's more or less a reinvention of what was attempted with "company towns", obviously with some significant differences.
- krapp 5y ago
  >They're basically trying to game the system to get all the benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher. Sigh. Section 230 makes no distinction between "platform" and "publisher" in regards to liability or editorial options. Sites have always been allowed to make "editorial opinions" while maintaining that protection. Platforms do not have to be neutral, nor do they lose their liability protection if they cease to be neutral in their moderation decisions. They're not gaming the system, that is the system working as intended. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-... 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...
  - hiram112 5y ago
    If this is true - whether because the courts don't enforce the "spirit" of the original law or for some other reason - why can't all companies just use Section 230 like the tech "platforms"? I mean CNN, Fox, NYTimes, etc. have big digital footprints, hire teams of engineers, publish "user-generated" content (i.e. comment sections), host videos, etc. Why are they subject to libel and defamation lawsuits, but Google, FB, etc. get to hide behind section 230? Why did only CNN, MSNBC, etc. get publicly humiliated by the Covington kid's lawyers when partisan "moderators" at Google and Facebook essentially posted the exact same libelous content (either directly or by just censoring / amplifying the posts of others)? Why have both Fox news (e.g. Tucker Carlson) and MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) had to spend millions defending themselves recently from defamation lawsuits, when Zuckerburg or Sundar Pichai could essentially make the EXACT same claims they did on their "platforms", yet be protected by this vague Section 230 shield? It seems like the law has become a joke, where you're basically guaranteed protection if you're head-quartered in California and considered a "tech company," while older established companies have to play by a completely different set of rules, even if their business models are exactly the same (selling ads and narratives, propaganda dissemination, etc.)
    - krapp 5y ago
      I'm not a lawyer. If you're actually interested in an answer, and not simply trying to score points, ask a lawyer. But my layman's guess is that the case isn't as simple as "the law is a joke or else CNN/FOX etc. could be immune from all libel and defamation lawsuits." I'm assuming there's some subtlety involved that you're unaware of, otherwise those media companies are simply stupid for not seeing something so obvious. I'm sure I could do the research myself, find the answer and compose a response detailing, with sources and footnotes, the reason your interpretation of the law is in error, but my experience on this forum has shown me that such efforts quickly lead to diminishing returns, and I have better ways to spend my time. Also, Section 230 isn't vague. You can find the text of it here[0]. It's quite simple and straightforward as these things go. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
    - perl4ever 5y ago
- ErikCorry 5y ago
  I don't think they are invoking section 230 at all in their defence. It's a pure first amendment defence - their decision to remove something from their platform is protected by 1A (no compelled speech). And their justification for removing it is just protected speech. Now if they were defending themselves for _not_ removing something that was actually defamatory they might invoke section 230. 230 merely strengthens free speech by giving the platform some immunity wrt what their users write. It doesn't require them to be neutral in any way.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Libel is extremely easy to win actually seeing as you have evidence of malice to undermine someones character. The key is proving losses. Like Stossel said, most of the media companies he worked for would have fired him if he misattributed a quote. Facebook is getting a free pass to libel people they dont like. If Facebook did this to Democrats, they would be demanding a reform much like the republicans. They dont because Facebook promotes the same ideology as them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

beerandt 5y ago

It's a little bit different here since there's an actual editorial response, and not just removal or similar. The whole reason facebook has 3rd parties do the factchecks is so it can claim that it isn't responsible for the factcheck content. They're basically trying to game the system to get all the benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher, even if it's by way of selecting which 3rd parties it defers this defacto editorial power to. I think if they wanted to claim freespeech here, it would amount to an (at least partial) admission that they are responsible for the content, which afaiu would make them subject to libel. It's more or less a reinvention of what was attempted with "company towns", obviously with some significant differences.

krapp 5y ago
>They're basically trying to game the system to get all the benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher. Sigh. Section 230 makes no distinction between "platform" and "publisher" in regards to liability or editorial options. Sites have always been allowed to make "editorial opinions" while maintaining that protection. Platforms do not have to be neutral, nor do they lose their liability protection if they cease to be neutral in their moderation decisions. They're not gaming the system, that is the system working as intended. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-... 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...
- hiram112 5y ago
  If this is true - whether because the courts don't enforce the "spirit" of the original law or for some other reason - why can't all companies just use Section 230 like the tech "platforms"? I mean CNN, Fox, NYTimes, etc. have big digital footprints, hire teams of engineers, publish "user-generated" content (i.e. comment sections), host videos, etc. Why are they subject to libel and defamation lawsuits, but Google, FB, etc. get to hide behind section 230? Why did only CNN, MSNBC, etc. get publicly humiliated by the Covington kid's lawyers when partisan "moderators" at Google and Facebook essentially posted the exact same libelous content (either directly or by just censoring / amplifying the posts of others)? Why have both Fox news (e.g. Tucker Carlson) and MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) had to spend millions defending themselves recently from defamation lawsuits, when Zuckerburg or Sundar Pichai could essentially make the EXACT same claims they did on their "platforms", yet be protected by this vague Section 230 shield? It seems like the law has become a joke, where you're basically guaranteed protection if you're head-quartered in California and considered a "tech company," while older established companies have to play by a completely different set of rules, even if their business models are exactly the same (selling ads and narratives, propaganda dissemination, etc.)
  - krapp 5y ago
    I'm not a lawyer. If you're actually interested in an answer, and not simply trying to score points, ask a lawyer. But my layman's guess is that the case isn't as simple as "the law is a joke or else CNN/FOX etc. could be immune from all libel and defamation lawsuits." I'm assuming there's some subtlety involved that you're unaware of, otherwise those media companies are simply stupid for not seeing something so obvious. I'm sure I could do the research myself, find the answer and compose a response detailing, with sources and footnotes, the reason your interpretation of the law is in error, but my experience on this forum has shown me that such efforts quickly lead to diminishing returns, and I have better ways to spend my time. Also, Section 230 isn't vague. You can find the text of it here[0]. It's quite simple and straightforward as these things go. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  - perl4ever 5y ago
ErikCorry 5y ago
I don't think they are invoking section 230 at all in their defence. It's a pure first amendment defence - their decision to remove something from their platform is protected by 1A (no compelled speech). And their justification for removing it is just protected speech. Now if they were defending themselves for _not_ removing something that was actually defamatory they might invoke section 230. 230 merely strengthens free speech by giving the platform some immunity wrt what their users write. It doesn't require them to be neutral in any way.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

Libel is extremely easy to win actually seeing as you have evidence of malice to undermine someones character. The key is proving losses. Like Stossel said, most of the media companies he worked for would have fired him if he misattributed a quote. Facebook is getting a free pass to libel people they dont like. If Facebook did this to Democrats, they would be demanding a reform much like the republicans. They dont because Facebook promotes the same ideology as them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]