Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Doug Humphrey <doug () joss com>
> Date: March 24, 2018 at 5:01:20 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change
>
> When the LAW changes, it is suddenly thrown into the domain of LAWYERS to determine corporate moves and responses.  
>
> Nobody should be surprised when the response is"overly safe" because the lawyers, particularly in view of NEW law 
> which is completely untested, are going to want a wide margin to stay safe from the newly (and poorly) defined edge.
>
> Most companies see these sorts of lawsuits as huge threats to their companies.
>
> Doug 
>
> > On Mar 24, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Duncan Elkins <duncan () duncanelkins com>
> > > Date: March 24, 2018 at 10:46:11 AM EDT
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change
> > >
> > > The unintended consequences are already ramifying. Reddit has preemptively closed threads and subreddits where 
> > > perfectly legal transactions were taking place, e.g., adults agreeing to meet and trade craft beer. 
> > >
> > > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/craigslist-personals-some-subreddits-disappear-with-fosta-passage/
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > > On Mar 24, 2018, at 6:24 AM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> > > > > Date: March 24, 2018 at 2:39:28 AM EDT
> > > > > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> > > > > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change
> > > > > Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
> > > > >
> > > > > Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change
> > > > > A 1996 law sits at the heart of a major question about the modern Internet: How much responsibility should fall 
> > > > > to online platforms for how their users act and get treated?
> > > > > By ALINA SELYUKH
> > > > > Mar 21 2018
> > > > > <https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change>
> > > > >
> > > > > It's 1995, and Chris Cox is on a plane reading a newspaper. One article about a recent court decision catches his 
> > > > > eye. This moment, in a way, ends up changing his life — and, to this day, it continues to change ours.
> > > > >
> > > > > The case that caught the congressman's attention involved some posts on a bulletin board — the early-Internet 
> > > > > precursor to today's social media. The ruling led to a new law, co-authored by Cox and often called simply 
> > > > > "Section 230."
> > > > >
> > > > > This 1996 statute became known as "a core pillar of Internet freedom" and "the law that gave us modern Internet" 
> > > > > — a critical component of free speech online. But the journey of Section 230 runs through some of the darkest 
> > > > > corners of the Web. Most egregiously, the law has been used to defend Backpage.com, a website featuring ads for 
> > > > > sex with children forced into prostitution.
> > > > >
> > > > > Today, this law still sits at the heart of a major question about the modern Internet: How much responsibility do 
> > > > > online platforms have for how their users behave or get treated? 
> > > > >
> > > > > In the first major change to Section 230 in years, Congress voted this week to make Internet companies take a 
> > > > > little more responsibility than they have for content on their sites.
> > > > >
> > > > > Library or newspaper?
> > > > >
> > > > > The court decision that started it all had to do with some online posts about a company called Stratton Oakmont. 
> > > > > On one finance-themed bulletin board, someone had accused the investment firm of fraud.
> > > > >
> > > > > Years later, Stratton Oakmont's crimes would be turned into a Hollywood film, The Wolf of Wall Street. But in 
> > > > > 1994, the firm called the accusations libel and wanted to sue. But because it was the Internet, the posts were 
> > > > > anonymous. So instead, the firm sued Prodigy, the online service that hosted the bulletin board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Prodigy argued it couldn't be responsible for a user's post — like a library, it could not liable for what's 
> > > > > inside its books. Or, in now-familiar terms: It's a platform, not a publisher.
> > > > >
> > > > > The court disagreed, but for an unexpected reason: Prodigy moderated posts, cleaning up foul language. And 
> > > > > because of that, the court treated Prodigy like a newspaper liable for its articles.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Cox read about this ruling, he thought this was "exactly the wrong result": How was this amazing new thing — 
> > > > > the Internet — going to blossom, if companies got punished for trying to keep things clean? "This struck me as a 
> > > > > way to make the Internet a cesspool," he says.
> > > > >
> > > > > At this moment, Cox was flying from his home in California to return to Congress. Back at work, Cox, a 
> > > > > Republican, teamed up with his friend, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, to rectify the court precedent.
> > > > >
> > > > > Together, they produced Section 230 — perhaps the only 20-year-old statute to be claimed by Internet companies 
> > > > > and advocates as technologically prescient.
> > > > >
> > > > > "The original purpose"
> > > > >
> > > > > Section 230 lives inside the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and it gives websites broad legal immunity: With 
> > > > > some exceptions, online platforms can't be sued for something posted by a user — and that remains true even if 
> > > > > they act a little like publishers, by moderating posts or setting specific standards.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Section 230 is as important as the First Amendment to protecting free speech online, certainly here in the 
> > > > > U.S.," says Emma Llanso, a free expression advocate at the Center for Democracy and Technology.
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> > > > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp
>
> This message was sent to the list address and trashed, but can be found online.



-------------------------------------------
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=20180324170240:AE423C22-2FA6-11E8-85BF-F47D51167CB1
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com