4 ms·
I'm guessing you're not a lawyer, and I'm not either, so there might be some details that are not obvious about it, but the regulation draws the line at allowin
by Phrodo_00 2y ago
I'm guessing you're not a lawyer, and I'm not either, so there might be some details that are not obvious about it, but the regulation draws the line at allowing you to do[1]:
> 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
I think that allows your use case without liability.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- kelnos 2y agoWow, "or otherwise objectionable" would seemingly give providers a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through.
- throwup238 2y agoIt's not a loophole. That's the intended meaning, otherwise it would be a violation of freedom of association. That doesn't mean anyone is free to promote content without liability, just that moderating by deleting content doesn't make it an "expressive product."
- habinero 2y agoBoth are protected, because both are 1A activity.
- zerocrates 2y agoThat subsection of 230 is about protecting you from being sued for moderating, like being sued by the people who posted the content you took down. The "my moderation makes me liable for everything I don't moderate" problem, that's what's addressed by the preceding section, the core of the law and the part that's most often at issue, which says that you can't be treated as publisher/speaker of anyone else's content.