Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Should Amazon Web services remove Twitter?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Halbhh" data-source="post: 75679380" data-attributes="member: 375234"><p>If you read the well written summary in the legal brief to congress:</p><p><a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10306.pdf" target="_blank">https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10306.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>Something I noticed even in (c)(1) (not our main discussion) included:</p><p><em>"Some courts have employed a “material contribution” test to determine if Section 230(c)(1) applies, holding that a service provider may be subject to liability if it “materially contribute[d] to the illegality” of the disputed content. Others have said that service providers may be liable if they “specifically encourage[] development of what is offensive about the content.”</em></p><p></p><p>That seems to me meaningful in relation to Parler <em>if </em>the implied advertisement or selling point of Parler is anything similar to be understood to be: "come and say whatever you like" and it means: including things that most any other site would remove, i.e. -- including whatever, like defamation, or incitement, <u>stuff that is illegal</u>. Even if it is just clearly implied. (I aware that Parler seems to have changed its public stance though after losing AWS services)</p><p></p><p>Of course I noticed the possible trend in less 230 c(1) immunity with the speculation that <em>"...might be that plaintiffs have gotten better at pleading facts alleging that service providers help develop content, and now bring more meritorious cases."</em></p><p><em></em></p><p>But...it's <em>Section 230(c)(2) that matters more for our discussion</em> (or at least the one I was doing) --</p><p> regarding the "good faith" requirement when there is any moderation at all, which it seems is always going to eventually be forced to occur with something like Twitter or Parler or Facebook. <em>Sooner or later they have to moderate (if they want to continue to exist) because sooner or later there will be prominent instances of outright federal criminal activity (see below) </em>--</p><p></p><p>For that I would recommend reading the pdf carefully starting at Section 230(c)(2) through to the end.</p><p></p><p>While the good faith requirement applies in 230c2, <strong> Section 230 Exceptions </strong>seems cogent us here, to me, in that at least some important federal crimes are apparently not protected by 230 immunity. e.g. -- Incitement to riot is illegal under U.S. federal law, for instance.</p><p></p><p>230 reads in part:</p><p></p><p><em>"(1)No effect on criminal law</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223" target="_blank">223</a> or <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/231" target="_blank">231</a> of this title..."</em></p><p><em><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank">47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material</a></em></p><p><em></em></p><p>But section 231 for example says:</p><p><em></em></p><p><em>(a)</em></p><p><em>"<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-849457050-322770246&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231" target="_blank">Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm</a> or <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1846489032-322770245&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231" target="_blank">explosive or incendiary device</a>, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1924035341-322770249&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231" target="_blank"> civil disorder </a>which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-602412325-322770248&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231" target="_blank"> commerce </a>or the movement of any article or commodity in<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-602412325-322770248&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231" target="_blank"> commerce </a><u>or the conduct or performance of any<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1409751808-322770247&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231" target="_blank"> federally protected function</a></u>..."</em></p><p><em></em></p><p>Basically, section 230 doesn't cancel section 231 and so on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Halbhh, post: 75679380, member: 375234"] If you read the well written summary in the legal brief to congress: [URL]https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10306.pdf[/URL] Something I noticed even in (c)(1) (not our main discussion) included: [I]"Some courts have employed a “material contribution” test to determine if Section 230(c)(1) applies, holding that a service provider may be subject to liability if it “materially contribute[d] to the illegality” of the disputed content. Others have said that service providers may be liable if they “specifically encourage[] development of what is offensive about the content.”[/I] That seems to me meaningful in relation to Parler [I]if [/I]the implied advertisement or selling point of Parler is anything similar to be understood to be: "come and say whatever you like" and it means: including things that most any other site would remove, i.e. -- including whatever, like defamation, or incitement, [U]stuff that is illegal[/U]. Even if it is just clearly implied. (I aware that Parler seems to have changed its public stance though after losing AWS services) Of course I noticed the possible trend in less 230 c(1) immunity with the speculation that [I]"...might be that plaintiffs have gotten better at pleading facts alleging that service providers help develop content, and now bring more meritorious cases." [/I] But...it's [I]Section 230(c)(2) that matters more for our discussion[/I] (or at least the one I was doing) -- regarding the "good faith" requirement when there is any moderation at all, which it seems is always going to eventually be forced to occur with something like Twitter or Parler or Facebook. [I]Sooner or later they have to moderate (if they want to continue to exist) because sooner or later there will be prominent instances of outright federal criminal activity (see below) [/I]-- For that I would recommend reading the pdf carefully starting at Section 230(c)(2) through to the end. While the good faith requirement applies in 230c2, [B] Section 230 Exceptions [/B]seems cogent us here, to me, in that at least some important federal crimes are apparently not protected by 230 immunity. e.g. -- Incitement to riot is illegal under U.S. federal law, for instance. 230 reads in part: [I]"(1)No effect on criminal law Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223']223[/URL] or [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/231']231[/URL] of this title..." [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230']47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material[/URL] [/I] But section 231 for example says: [I] (a) "[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-849457050-322770246&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231']Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm[/URL] or [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1846489032-322770245&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231']explosive or incendiary device[/URL], or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1924035341-322770249&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231'] civil disorder [/URL]which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-602412325-322770248&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231'] commerce [/URL]or the movement of any article or commodity in[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-602412325-322770248&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231'] commerce [/URL][U]or the conduct or performance of any[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1409751808-322770247&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:12:section:231'] federally protected function[/URL][/U]..." [/I] Basically, section 230 doesn't cancel section 231 and so on. [I] [/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Should Amazon Web services remove Twitter?
Top
Bottom