4 ms·

Section 230 removes liability for restricting good faith attempts to combat CSAM. > (2) Civil liability > No provider or user of an interactive computer servi

Section 230 removes liability for restricting good faith attempts to combat CSAM. > (2) Civil liability > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

nottorp 3y ago
I don't see any reference to child porn there. Who decides what's obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable? Especially otherwise objectionable?
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Who decides Judges and juries. And I can assure you that every single judge in the USA, and almost every single member of a jury would decide that CSAM is obscene. Thats how the law works. We have tons of laws that use general words like this, and trying to be "clever" usually just results in a lost court case or prison time for the person who thinks they found a loophole.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    What else is obscene? And why would I have to accept an US jury's opinion? Also you didn't define 'otherwise objectionable'. For example what I think is excessive violence may be considered normal by a jury in the US...
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > What else is obscene? Quite a lot of things may or may not fall under that definition. Thats how the law works. > And why would I have to accept an US jury's opinion? Well, because they and judges are the ones empowered by the government monopoly on violence to judge the law and then have it be enforced, thats why. Ignore the law at your own peril. But anyway, even if you did ignore the law, this doesn't have anything to do with you. This is about companies immunity from prosecution. So, even if you disagree with the law, those companies are still immune under section 230, for good faith efforts to remove obscene content. > Also you didn't define 'otherwise objectionable'. It would be defined as whatever judges and juries define it as. I don't define it. Instead it is defined by those people. > For example what I think If you are not a judge or currently on a jury, then what you think is irrelevant. The law is not computer code. Instead, it is interpreted by humans. And that is the case for basically all of law.
      - nottorp 3y ago
        > Well, because they and judges are the ones empowered by the government monopoly on violence to judge the law and then have it be enforced, thats why. ... by the US government on US territory, i think. They have no business defining "otherwise objectionable" elsewhere.
        stale2002 3y ago
        > They have no business defining "otherwise objectionable" elsewhere. The principles that I have describe also apply to other countries as well. So yes it is absolutely the case that in other countries there are judges and juries that apply the law via the process of judges and juries. But once again, no matter what some other country thinks, on this specific topic, it is about a company getting immunity from USA enforcement. So all other countries do not matter on this topic, because this is about US law.
beej71 3y ago
Ugh, that's a pisser. "We ruined your life, sorry. You can't do anything about it. Ta ta!"

nottorp 3y ago

I don't see any reference to child porn there. Who decides what's obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable? Especially otherwise objectionable?

stale2002 3y ago
> Who decides Judges and juries. And I can assure you that every single judge in the USA, and almost every single member of a jury would decide that CSAM is obscene. Thats how the law works. We have tons of laws that use general words like this, and trying to be "clever" usually just results in a lost court case or prison time for the person who thinks they found a loophole.
- nottorp 3y ago
  What else is obscene? And why would I have to accept an US jury's opinion? Also you didn't define 'otherwise objectionable'. For example what I think is excessive violence may be considered normal by a jury in the US...
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > What else is obscene? Quite a lot of things may or may not fall under that definition. Thats how the law works. > And why would I have to accept an US jury's opinion? Well, because they and judges are the ones empowered by the government monopoly on violence to judge the law and then have it be enforced, thats why. Ignore the law at your own peril. But anyway, even if you did ignore the law, this doesn't have anything to do with you. This is about companies immunity from prosecution. So, even if you disagree with the law, those companies are still immune under section 230, for good faith efforts to remove obscene content. > Also you didn't define 'otherwise objectionable'. It would be defined as whatever judges and juries define it as. I don't define it. Instead it is defined by those people. > For example what I think If you are not a judge or currently on a jury, then what you think is irrelevant. The law is not computer code. Instead, it is interpreted by humans. And that is the case for basically all of law.
    - nottorp 3y ago
      > Well, because they and judges are the ones empowered by the government monopoly on violence to judge the law and then have it be enforced, thats why. ... by the US government on US territory, i think. They have no business defining "otherwise objectionable" elsewhere.
      - stale2002 3y ago
        > They have no business defining "otherwise objectionable" elsewhere. The principles that I have describe also apply to other countries as well. So yes it is absolutely the case that in other countries there are judges and juries that apply the law via the process of judges and juries. But once again, no matter what some other country thinks, on this specific topic, it is about a company getting immunity from USA enforcement. So all other countries do not matter on this topic, because this is about US law.

beej71 3y ago

Ugh, that's a pisser. "We ruined your life, sorry. You can't do anything about it. Ta ta!"