You've once again not grasped SI Dave's point.
I'm not missing his point... he's just wrong in what he's claiming.
He wants to see more than is there... by taking one narrow clause out of context to pretend it stands alone... and he wants to see less than is there, by ignoring both the preliminary conditional elements that are directly asserted in the law itself... and all of the unstated elements that pre-exist in the basic context of the law... and he wants to have all of that support what he wants to be true... in a way that insulates him from having any obligations to comply with... to earn the grant of immunity... including those which are asserted as the requirements of the law directly in Section 230.
Dave wants to ignore the first two paragraphs... pretending they're just a rambling introduction... a word salad that has no force of law... that you have to comply with to enable the rest... before it gets to that one line he finds meaningful... as if the structure of the law doesn't place it, with the resulting limits, IN THE CONTEXT of the preceding paragraphs... as well as in the context of the rest of the law.
The assertion that Section 230 is "settled law" and rock solid in the protections it provides... is more than a tad overly optimistic...
For a more balanced view... read what EFF says about it. They're pretty good in not overselling it quite so much, while pointing out where there are uncertainties... areas where the courts have not ruled... but, also, in not fostering any misperception by selling CDA 230 as some one stop all inclusive magic shield that wards off every legal risk. It doesn't re-write the law on basic business risks, for instance... it ONLY applies to publishers risks...
They note that "It does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law. " Even the EFF presentation is weak, though, being under-cautious when wandering farther from the basic issues of publisher's liability... into things like impacts in context of business law and implied contracts. Theirs on "acceptable use guidelines" and "holding to policies" is pretty weak... in being overly focused on publishers liability... and under appreciative of the fact that business and contract law are pretty well settled, too... and following their advice there invites risks easily avoidable by following "best business practices" in dealing with customers. There is a risk that following some of that advice... while not exposing you to publishers risks... could still end up exposing you to business risks and charges of fraud...
If you value CDA 230... you won't over-sell it and convince people that it protects and enables them even in practicing basic frauds ?
The biggest weakness that's apparent... isn't inherent in the text... but in the way people read it wrongly... as providing a sort of blank check in immunity... without requiring anything of them in performance...
Section 230 protects a blog host from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
So, overlooking that "good faith" isn't a random choice of words... but words with specific legal meaning... the meaning of which is not different in publishing than in any other sphere of business ? It's basic business law... basic contract law... clearly intended to be relevant here, too, as it is contained AS A REQUIREMENT in the law itself more than once... which creates an implied contract. EFF wrong on that,, too.
But, the requirement of good faith... doesn't necessarily define a limit in obligation or risk. There isn't, for example, contained within the limits in publisher's liability... any implied license to enable anyone to engage in misrepresentation or practice basic deceit ?
|
