3 ms·

> They know what it says, Masnick is being disingenuous. > Section 230(c)(1) says that platforms aren't liable "as the publisher or speaker" for third party sp

> They know what it says, Masnick is being disingenuous. > Section 230(c)(1) says that platforms aren't liable "as the publisher or speaker" for third party speech even if they moderate. The platforms are arguing that moderation is first party speech, implying that doesn't apply. You are mixing up two kinds of speech. In the article, Mike Masnick is arguing that the user's post is third-party speech, no matter how much the platform boosts or downranks the post. The platform's decision to boost, downrank, or remove the post is first-party speech. The platform's terms of service are first-party speech. The Florida and Texas laws unnecessarily restrict the platforms' moderation decisions, which are first-party speech protected by the First Amendment, on the basis of the contents of third-party speech i.e. holding the platforms liable as the publisher for third-party speech i.e. violating Section 230. Strict scrutiny requires that laws which serve some state interest use a method which is least restrictive of constitutional rights in achieving that state interest [1]. Allowing social media sites to be held liable for user posts violates strict scrutiny. There already is an available remedy for users' third-party speech which does not restrict platforms' first-party right to moderate: putting liability only on the users who authored the speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Applicability

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The Florida and Texas laws unnecessarily restrict the platforms' moderation decisions, which are first-party speech protected by the First Amendment, on the basis of the contents of third-party speech i.e. holding the platforms liable as the publisher for third-party speech i.e. violating Section 230. They aren't incurring liability for hosting third party speech. Even if they left 100% of everything up they wouldn't be violating these laws. What the laws are trying to do is impose penalties for the first party act of censorship, whereas what you get from 230(c)(1) is protection for the first party act of not removing third party speech. > There already is an available remedy for user's third-party speech which does not restrict platforms' first-party right to moderate: suing the users of the posts. But there isn't a remedy for the third-party speaker whose posts are capriciously removed from a dominant platform, which is what the laws are trying to address.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  > What the laws are trying to do is impose penalties for the first party act of censorship Which is the part of the lawsuit which the First Amendment addresses already. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws restricting speech [1]: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It does not require that Congress pass a law promoting speech, but can restrict Congress from removing such a law afterward. Because of the Establishment Clause, the First Amendment's restrictions on Congress apply to the federal government as a whole and state governments [2]. The First Amendment does not restrict voluntary moderation decisions by websites. The First Amendment generally restricts speech compelled by governments (including in lawsuits, but usually not when a contract is involved), since freedom of speech includes freedom of when to speak and when to not speak. The First Amendment also includes freedom to associate. That Section 230(c)(2)(A) mentions liability for removing objectionable content does nothing to lessen the First Amendment's protections. Section 230 (c)(2)(A) is: > (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material > (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 The key idea is: "that the provider or user considers to be... objectionable". "Objectionable" can mean that the provider doesn't want to keep hosting for any reason. Social media sites can make voluntary, unilateral decisions to remove speech. The First Amendment already does that, but Section 230 offers an early dismissal opportunity should anyone sue over a social media site's voluntary, unilateral "censorship". [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The Florida and Texas laws unnecessarily restrict the platforms' moderation decisions, which are first-party speech protected by the First Amendment, on the basis of the contents of third-party speech i.e. holding the platforms liable as the publisher for third-party speech i.e. violating Section 230. They aren't incurring liability for hosting third party speech. Even if they left 100% of everything up they wouldn't be violating these laws. What the laws are trying to do is impose penalties for the first party act of censorship, whereas what you get from 230(c)(1) is protection for the first party act of not removing third party speech. > There already is an available remedy for user's third-party speech which does not restrict platforms' first-party right to moderate: suing the users of the posts. But there isn't a remedy for the third-party speaker whose posts are capriciously removed from a dominant platform, which is what the laws are trying to address.

hn_acker 3y ago
> What the laws are trying to do is impose penalties for the first party act of censorship Which is the part of the lawsuit which the First Amendment addresses already. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws restricting speech [1]: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It does not require that Congress pass a law promoting speech, but can restrict Congress from removing such a law afterward. Because of the Establishment Clause, the First Amendment's restrictions on Congress apply to the federal government as a whole and state governments [2]. The First Amendment does not restrict voluntary moderation decisions by websites. The First Amendment generally restricts speech compelled by governments (including in lawsuits, but usually not when a contract is involved), since freedom of speech includes freedom of when to speak and when to not speak. The First Amendment also includes freedom to associate. That Section 230(c)(2)(A) mentions liability for removing objectionable content does nothing to lessen the First Amendment's protections. Section 230 (c)(2)(A) is: > (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material > (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 The key idea is: "that the provider or user considers to be... objectionable". "Objectionable" can mean that the provider doesn't want to keep hosting for any reason. Social media sites can make voluntary, unilateral decisions to remove speech. The First Amendment already does that, but Section 230 offers an early dismissal opportunity should anyone sue over a social media site's voluntary, unilateral "censorship". [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education [3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago