Interesting People mailing list archives
Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change
From: "Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:28:01 +0900
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Savage, Christopher" <ChrisSavage () dwt com> Date: March 30, 2018 at 4:09:32 AM GMT+9 To: "dave () farber net" <dave () farber net> Subject: RE: [IP] Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:34 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change Dave, for IP if you wish… ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>1/ The useful public purpose of Section 230 immunity is foronline services to be safe permitting unrestricted user comments.2/ That public purpose is not particularly well-served by pe=rmitting online services to monetize those comments (other than by making t= hem available),3/ That public purpose is also not well-served by permitting=online services to escape liability for content they actively promote to u= sers, even if the online services did not create that content.4/ Similarly, it is not well-served by permitting online ser=vices to escape liability for the content of advertisements or other conten= t for which the online service is paid.It is firmly established in First Amendment law that making money from your publishing is no excuse for censorship. The criteria you proposed don't pass the laugh test; almost nobody would want to livein the society that it would produce. Every newspaper, magazine, TV station and every bookseller makes money from what it publishes, and some of that is written or recorded by outsiders. And, each of them promote what they publish, and many of them publish ads. And each of them has a RIGHT to publish these things, without being sued out of existence by people who disagree with what they published.<< John, You are, to some extent, making my point. Every newspaper, magazine, TV station, etc., has a right to publish what they choose. Agreed. But at the same time, they are subject to damages claims (which can be substantial) if what they choose to publish is (for example) defamatory under established legal standards. And traditional media, knowing that they are subject to such claims, invest time and effort (usually successful) to ensure that what they publish is not defamatory. Indeed, much more than that – without question, major media outlets set a much, much higher standard for themselves, seeking to publish stories that reflect what they understand the truth to be. Now, the law is well-established that defamation suits cannot succeed on the grounds that someone disagrees with or doesn’t like what the publisher says. When the subject of an article or ad is a public figure, the standard (as you know, I’m sure), is either “knowing falsity” or “reckless disregard” as to whether the publication is true or false. My point is that Section 230 relieved online service providers of damages liability for stuff that they allow to be put up on their sites by third parties, with no consideration at all of whether that material is knowingly or recklessly (or otherwise) false. As I said earlier, that was very likely the right call in 1996, particularly applied to user-generated comments. Pre-publication review in the traditional sense for such comments doesn’t scale. But the question now is whether in light of how the online ecosystem has evolved, that same rule, unamended and unchanged, makes sense going forward, or whether it would be fair and workable to impose potential liability on online service providers for some third-party content that they allow to be put up on their sites. Your view may be that all of libel law is an unacceptable infringement on First Amendment rights, because its existence undoubtedly causes publishers to think about what they publish and to not run some things that they’d “like” to publish due to fears of liability. If so, I get that view, but it is not in accord with longstanding law. My points above were intended to encourage discussion. Thanks to you (and Dave!) for responding. Chris S. Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20180329182811:74C9960E-33A0-11E8-AABE-AD58D726E7FD Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change Dave Farber (Mar 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change Dave Farber (Mar 24)
- Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change Dave Farber (Mar 24)
- Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change Dave Farber (Mar 26)
- Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change Dave Farber (Mar 27)
- Message not available
- Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change Dave Farber (Mar 28)
- Message not available
- Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change Dave Farber (Mar 29)