SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: sense who wrote (12278)12/4/2019 3:01:07 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (1) of 12465
 
If you want to... you can easily craft a sudoku puzzle with more than one correct solution.
No you can't, or else it's not a Sukoku puzzle. And that's what you are doing by arguing the law as written is not the law as written. Prior suits against Backpages.com were indeed dismissed based on CDA 230 protections. Backpages was finally nailed when it was proven that they actively facilitated crimes by, for example, themselves editing ads to relabel underage girls as adults. That made their CDA 230 protection go poof. See: techdirt.com

I'm a bit lost now on what your argument is. There are really only two paths here one can take. Either one can argue that CDA 230 should no longer be considered constitutional, or one can argue that various publishers of content should not fall under the law for some reason, as the case with Backpages. Or, I suppose, one might argue that there should be additional exceptions to the law, but that's more of a moral not legal discussion. So what again in a nutshell is your argument?

- Jeff
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News