3 ms·

> Your narrative is consistent neither with the text of the law, nor with the legislative history, nor with the broader legal and business history surrounding t

> Your narrative is consistent neither with the text of the law, nor with the legislative history, nor with the broader legal and business history surrounding the adoption of Section 230. The law only mentions content provider. What is that? The law doesn't say. Its broad. Its so vague that it could comprise the ISP, the ethernet cable plugged into your computer, the website, a moderating person, the drafter of a moderating policy, and just about anything else touched by an electron. As such its impossible to be wrong in interpretation because all interpretations are allowed as the law is written, which is precisely why everybody online is granted blanket immunity. That is the greatest example of tort reform as all torts are expressly eliminated to/from all parties. That is absolutely not the intent.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> The law only mentions content provider No, actually, the law mentions "interactive computer service" as the protected entity. And it defines the term. Yes, that definition explicitly includes ISPs, since there were rising demands that they offer content filtering which would, under the existing precedent, incur publisher liability, but it also extends beyond it, and the motivating cases were not about ISPs qua ISPs. It refers to information content providers, but those are the people who are liable, and whose existence distinct from the interactive computer service makes the interactive computer service not liable. It also rather specifically defines that term, as well. See, generally, 47 USC Sec. 230(f) > As such its impossible to be wrong in interpretation No, its not. > because all interpretations are allowed as the law is written Well, if you ignore the actual text of the law as badly as you are, I can see where you would get that idea. > which is precisely why everybody online is granted blanket immunity. No, everyone online is not granted blanket immunity; people online have successfully been sued for various torts. > That is the greatest example of tort reform as all torts are expressly eliminated to/from all parties. That's...not how Section 230 works, in practice, nor is it even consistent with the rest of your argument (which is that it was implicitly through vagueness, not explicitly), which, as already stated, is also wrong.
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  That is also not correct about interactive computer service. It is the provider or user thereof that is the protected entity. There is no ambiguity on that one. The law is only one small sentence. But in all fairness interactive computer service is pretty vague too.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > That is also not correct about interactive computer service. It is the provider or user thereof that is the protected entity Yes, that was a bit of simplification, but you are strictly correct. > The law is only one small sentence. One? I think you may want to count again. Here is the text of Section 230: (a) FINDINGS The Congress finds the following: (1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens. (2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. (3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. (4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. (5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services. (b)POLICY It is the policy of the United States— (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media; (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation; (3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services; (4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer. (c)PROTECTION FOR “GOOD SAMARITAN” BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL (1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (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; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). (d) OBLIGATIONS OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections. (e) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS (1) NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LAW Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute. (2) NO EFFECT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property. (3) STATE LAW Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section. (4) NO EFFECT ON COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY LAW Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law. (5) NO EFFECT ON SEX TRAFFICKING LAWNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit— (A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title; (B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or (C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted. (f) DEFINITIONS As used in this section: (1) INTERNET The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks. (2) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. (3) INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service. (4) ACCESS SOFTWARE PROVIDERThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following: (A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content; (B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or (C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The law only mentions content provider No, actually, the law mentions "interactive computer service" as the protected entity. And it defines the term. Yes, that definition explicitly includes ISPs, since there were rising demands that they offer content filtering which would, under the existing precedent, incur publisher liability, but it also extends beyond it, and the motivating cases were not about ISPs qua ISPs. It refers to information content providers, but those are the people who are liable, and whose existence distinct from the interactive computer service makes the interactive computer service not liable. It also rather specifically defines that term, as well. See, generally, 47 USC Sec. 230(f) > As such its impossible to be wrong in interpretation No, its not. > because all interpretations are allowed as the law is written Well, if you ignore the actual text of the law as badly as you are, I can see where you would get that idea. > which is precisely why everybody online is granted blanket immunity. No, everyone online is not granted blanket immunity; people online have successfully been sued for various torts. > That is the greatest example of tort reform as all torts are expressly eliminated to/from all parties. That's...not how Section 230 works, in practice, nor is it even consistent with the rest of your argument (which is that it was implicitly through vagueness, not explicitly), which, as already stated, is also wrong.

austin-cheney 3y ago
That is also not correct about interactive computer service. It is the provider or user thereof that is the protected entity. There is no ambiguity on that one. The law is only one small sentence. But in all fairness interactive computer service is pretty vague too.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > That is also not correct about interactive computer service. It is the provider or user thereof that is the protected entity Yes, that was a bit of simplification, but you are strictly correct. > The law is only one small sentence. One? I think you may want to count again. Here is the text of Section 230: (a) FINDINGS The Congress finds the following: (1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens. (2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops. (3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. (4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. (5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services. (b)POLICY It is the policy of the United States— (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media; (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation; (3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services; (4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer. (c)PROTECTION FOR “GOOD SAMARITAN” BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL (1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (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; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). (d) OBLIGATIONS OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections. (e) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS (1) NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LAW Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute. (2) NO EFFECT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property. (3) STATE LAW Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section. (4) NO EFFECT ON COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY LAW Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law. (5) NO EFFECT ON SEX TRAFFICKING LAWNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit— (A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title; (B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or (C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted. (f) DEFINITIONS As used in this section: (1) INTERNET The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks. (2) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. (3) INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service. (4) ACCESS SOFTWARE PROVIDERThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following: (A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content; (B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or (C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.