2 ms·
>with 230, any crime in user content, they can just tell the govt that they will take content down and gov can go and hunt the criminals. This is completely un
by constantcrying 2y ago
>with 230, any crime in user content, they can just tell the govt that they will take content down and gov can go and hunt the criminals.
This is completely untrue. Section 230 does not protect from criminal liability. It protects from civil liability.
This why hosting criminal material, such as CSAM, is not protected.
- whythre 2y agoThe distinction between civil and criminal liability seems minor- either way this will have a massive chilling effect and force any website to carefully vet hosted content for fear of being sued. The threshold for criminal prosecution is very high. The threshold for a civil suit is comparably low.
- constantcrying 2y ago>The distinction between civil and criminal liability seems minor It is an immense difference though. Civil and criminal law differ in almost every single conceivable way. You literally go on to name one very important difference. The threshold for civil litigation is someone deciding to file a pro se suit against you by giving something vaguely resembling a legal document to a court. The chilling effect of that is much more dramatic than criminal liability.
- DangitBobby 2y agoDoes that mean the owners of a site could be prosecuted if one of their users ever uploads criminal content, regardless of how quickly the site owner identifies and removes the content?