of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Mr Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, was no fan of Section 230 either. In 2020 Mr Trump ordered the Federal Communications Commission to confront “online censorship” and consider the law’s role in facilitating it. A flurry of proposals to revise Section 230 have been proposed in Congress but none has come up for a vote in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. This week the third branch of the federal government weighs in on the issue.
Section 230 was passed nearly 30 years ago, when websites were young and perceived to be vulnerable. The provision ensured that the companies that hosted them would not get bogged down in lawsuits if users posted material to which others might object, such as bad restaurant reviews or complaints about neighbours. The law has been interpreted by federal courts to do two things.
Politicians will also have a say in the future of Section 230. They have three options, says Blair Levin, a former official at the: leave Section 230 as it is, repeal it or modify it. Repeal would probably not allay all the concerns of the provision’s critics. It would increase the risk of censorship, becausewould police content more actively and take posts down for fear of being sued for defamation.
tI is about censorship, just like did on the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Send your reporters to interview Seymour Hersh. I dare you.
Recent congressional hearings showed just the opposite. Twitter went out of their way to accommodate right-wing voices, such as MTG, despite frequent terms-of-service violations.
I was taught you could say anything you wanted except you could not yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. I think we are arguing what the equivalent is on the Internet.
GOPers are silly. Online platforms can't censor. Sure - Online platforms can limit the content published on their platforms, but that's not censorship.
they have no idea what they’re doing and are not willing to take it seriously because they are not willing to do admit they don’t know how any of this works, so they will find a solution that works for their benefactors but they are not knowable enough to make sense of it either
We've been here before; who decides what's objectionable? To what degree is something offensive if it's satire? Is objectionable speech protected? All these ?'s have been answered. Bottom line - it's up to moderators to referee speech deemed not acceptable by company standards.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: TIME - 🏆 93. / 53 Read more »
Landmark internet cases go before the US Supreme Court\n\t\t\tKeep abreast of significant corporate, financial and political developments around the world.\n\t\t\tStay informed and spot emerging risks and opportunities with independent global reporting, expert\n\t\t\tcommentary and analysis you can trust.\n\t\t It's going to be a bad day for Facebook.
Source: FT - 🏆 113. / 51 Read more »