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="tall73" data-source="post: 75679644" data-attributes="member: 125574"><p>If you keep reading they get more to the point: </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #006600">To defend against a claim based on a content removal decision, an ISP needs to show they made the content-related decision in good faith. Good faith means that the ISP did not make the decision with the intent to defraud or otherwise facilitate illegal activity. Defendants can use this defense even if they do not qualify for immunity under Section 230(c)(1) because they developed the content at issue. <strong>Defendants may rely on this defense so long as it was a decision to restrict access to content because the ISP considered it obscene or otherwise objectionable.</strong></span></p><p><span style="color: #006600"></span></p><p>The list of decided cases shows that the courts have extended protection based on the platform's defense that thy removed it because it was objectionable. </p><p></p><p>Objectionable could be many things. On CF for instance it can even be theological assertions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tall73, post: 75679644, member: 125574"] If you keep reading they get more to the point: [COLOR=#006600]To defend against a claim based on a content removal decision, an ISP needs to show they made the content-related decision in good faith. Good faith means that the ISP did not make the decision with the intent to defraud or otherwise facilitate illegal activity. Defendants can use this defense even if they do not qualify for immunity under Section 230(c)(1) because they developed the content at issue. [B]Defendants may rely on this defense so long as it was a decision to restrict access to content because the ISP considered it obscene or otherwise objectionable.[/B] [B][/B][/COLOR] The list of decided cases shows that the courts have extended protection based on the platform's defense that thy removed it because it was objectionable. Objectionable could be many things. On CF for instance it can even be theological assertions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Should Amazon Web services remove Twitter?
Top
Bottom