This blog contains several posts questioning the premise that the ISP liability shield known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a “sacred” law, without which the internet would cease to do all the wonderful things it does. Like foster a more rational, diplomatic, and thoughtful political climate around the world. (Because that’s going so well.) ...
First, a refresher. The broad immunity provision known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was adopted in 1996 as an incentive to internet service providers to take affirmative steps to remove material. Congress wanted to encourage sites to take down certain types of offensive or obscene content (e.g. child porn), and the ISPs asserted, quite reasonably, that taking ...
During Tuesday’s Joint Senate Committee hearing, as Mark Zuckerberg kept promising to take better control over content on Facebook, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked the CEO point blank if the site is a neutral platform or a publisher. Cruz acknowledged the company’s right to act as a publisher but also alluded to the fact that its liability protection under Section ...
This refrain keeps playing over in my head lately: The EFF and its sister organizations are to cyberlaw as the NRA is to rational gun policy in America. That seems like a pretty harsh thing to say about a bunch of progressives (and one must even include the ACLU in this discussion), but in the context of policy debate, the ...
Photo by Pond5. Christopher Zara, writing for Backchannel, offers an excellent discussion about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. He provides historical context and a balanced presentation of the challenges that have arisen from the differences between the law’s intent and its application. “Given how often Section 230 is championed, cited, and showered with superlatives, you ...
