Legal Shield for Social Media is Targeted by Lawmakers
Sunday, November 01, 2020
Legal Shield for Social Media is Targeted by Lawmakers
Section 230, from a 1996 federal law, was meant to protect young internet companies from liability. Lawmakers have threatened to change it.
Published May 28, 2020
Updated Oct. 28, 2020 NY Times
This article was originally published in 2019 and has been updated.
When the most consequential law governing speech on the internet was created in 1996, Google.com didn't exist and Mark Zuckerberg was 11 years old.
The federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, has helped Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and countless other internet companies flourish.
But Section 230's liability protection also extends to fringe sites known for hosting hate speech, anti-Semitic content and racist tropes like 8chan, the internet message board where the suspect in the El Paso shooting massacre posted his manifesto.
["But Section 230's liability protection also extends to fringe sites known for hosting hate speech, anti-Semitic content and racist tropes like 8chan, the internet message board where the suspect in the El Paso shooting massacre posted his manifesto."
N.S.: Irrelevant nonsense. There's no such thing as "hate speech."]
The First Amendment protects free speech, including hate speech, but Section 230 shields websites from liability for content created by their users. It permits internet companies to moderate their sites without being on the hook legally for everything they host. It does not provide blanket protection from legal responsibility for some criminal acts, like posting child pornography or violations of intellectual property.
[N.S.: The issue isn't "hate speech," but defamation.]
As scrutiny of big technology companies has intensified in Washington over a wide variety of issues, including how they handle the spread of disinformation or police hate speech, Section 230 has faced new focus.
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, has described the law as "a subsidy, a perk" for big tech that may need to be reconsidered, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California called Section 230 a "gift" to tech companies "that could be removed."
On Wednesday, the chief executives of Google, Facebook and Twitter testified before a Senate committee and delivered a full-throated defense of speech on their platforms and supporting Section 230 — even if the law does not stay the same. Snip
2 comments:
When Zuck got his concern going he never foresaw what was going to occur. Does he ask himself now "was itworth it?"
They--the tech companies--make too much money and donate too much money to Congress for anything to change.They're the glue that commies can count on to censor opposing viewpoints--plus MSM.
--GRA
Post a Comment