3 ms·

That's just not true. If you're losing on Constitutional grounds, I agree with you. But if you're losing the case on legal grounds it can absolutely be a silve

That's just not true. If you're losing on Constitutional grounds, I agree with you. But if you're losing the case on legal grounds it can absolutely be a silver lining, since it can demonstrate to Congress a need to legislate (I know, I know, a foreign concept for Congress). Consider Section 230, though. It was passed because the Supreme Court ruled on a case in a way that irritated Congress. The Courts were bound because the law was what it was. But those Court cases prompted Congress to act. The actual rulings from the Court were horrendous precedent, and if that's where the policymaking stopped the internet would have been a disaster. But Congress acted and passed Section 230.

Clubber 3y ago
>The actual rulings from the Court were horrendous precedent Do you happen to remember that ruling? I'd be interested in reading it.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  The EFF has a pretty good page that outlines the cases: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history One was Cubby v. CompuServe [1], which found that an online platform was not liable as a "distributor" (which is basically an analogy to physical books, since most of the prior case-law was based on physical printed words), because they didn't review any content on the forums before it was posted. The other was Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy [2] (which was actually a NY court case), which found that because Prodigy performed _any_ moderation, they were more akin to a publisher, which was liable for everything they published. Taken together, the two rulings essentially meant that any site that hosted user generated content had two options: - Perform *no moderation at all* (no deleting Nazis, pornography, spam, etc), OR - Assume liability for *all* user generated content on the site Also, a final note, I was actually wrong when I invoked the Supreme Court. It was a federal district court case, and a NY state court case. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/776/135/2340509/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/7... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.#cite_note-Stratton-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod... (I'm actually not finding the full text of the opinion online after a brief bit of searching. I've found a couple of sites that have links to it, but all are broken at the moment; I'm sure you can find it with some more digging, but I don't have time to find it atm)
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    Stratton Oakmont was notably made semi super famous in their cocaine-fueled Hollywoodized Wolf of Wallstreet portrayal, making plain the pernicious S.O.B. financial worlds willingness to prey on everyone. Oh and what a shock. The courts sided with Strston Oakmont saying that online providers were liable for allowing people to discuss the merciless piece of shit bastard scum as they actually were. Just absolute shit can monstrous vile shit going on in the courts, helping the worst corporations persecute humanity with impunity. I watched the 2851 miles video recently, and honestly this whole pissing in the face of regulatory capture story seems 99% to be a problem with the useless pro-business courts, and the ability of these predator of humankind to court shop their pernicious horse-shit. The video is largely about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 failing to create competition, but it was the courts that told the FCC to give up the Congress mandate to create local loop unbundling & to give fiber & cable natural / physical monopoly. Again and again, good law is subverted in court by checks & balances which have only one representative: big money corporate interests.

Clubber 3y ago

>The actual rulings from the Court were horrendous precedent Do you happen to remember that ruling? I'd be interested in reading it.

ncallaway 3y ago
The EFF has a pretty good page that outlines the cases: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history One was Cubby v. CompuServe [1], which found that an online platform was not liable as a "distributor" (which is basically an analogy to physical books, since most of the prior case-law was based on physical printed words), because they didn't review any content on the forums before it was posted. The other was Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy [2] (which was actually a NY court case), which found that because Prodigy performed _any_ moderation, they were more akin to a publisher, which was liable for everything they published. Taken together, the two rulings essentially meant that any site that hosted user generated content had two options: - Perform *no moderation at all* (no deleting Nazis, pornography, spam, etc), OR - Assume liability for *all* user generated content on the site Also, a final note, I was actually wrong when I invoked the Supreme Court. It was a federal district court case, and a NY state court case. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/776/135/2340509/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/7... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.#cite_note-Stratton-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod... (I'm actually not finding the full text of the opinion online after a brief bit of searching. I've found a couple of sites that have links to it, but all are broken at the moment; I'm sure you can find it with some more digging, but I don't have time to find it atm)
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Stratton Oakmont was notably made semi super famous in their cocaine-fueled Hollywoodized Wolf of Wallstreet portrayal, making plain the pernicious S.O.B. financial worlds willingness to prey on everyone. Oh and what a shock. The courts sided with Strston Oakmont saying that online providers were liable for allowing people to discuss the merciless piece of shit bastard scum as they actually were. Just absolute shit can monstrous vile shit going on in the courts, helping the worst corporations persecute humanity with impunity. I watched the 2851 miles video recently, and honestly this whole pissing in the face of regulatory capture story seems 99% to be a problem with the useless pro-business courts, and the ability of these predator of humankind to court shop their pernicious horse-shit. The video is largely about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 failing to create competition, but it was the courts that told the FCC to give up the Congress mandate to create local loop unbundling & to give fiber & cable natural / physical monopoly. Again and again, good law is subverted in court by checks & balances which have only one representative: big money corporate interests.