Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sense who wrote (12292)	12/6/2019 11:08:28 AM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Now you're saying that the REAL benefit of that brilliant piece of legislation is that it... allows media companies to take the soapbox away from anyone they don't like... ? You don't even have a clue what the catalyst for the creation of the CDA was.Chubby v. Compuserve. Compuserv was sued for defamatory content posted by a third-party. Compuserv didn't moderate content, so the court found they could not be held liable for the defamatory content. Four year later, Stratton Oakmont (of Wolf of Wall Street infamy) v. Prodigy. Same kind of lawsuit, except that Prodigy did actively moderate ("censor," to use your lingo) their message boards so the courts held they could potentially be held liable for third-party content. Congress intervened, with the stated view that it wanted to encourage internet intermediaries to moderate third-party content as they saw fit without fear of incurring liability. "Taking the soapbox away" is a form of moderating. There is no "fairness" factor on the law. There's nothing that said in cannot be biased in its application. Indeed, there is no other condition other than the limitation that it only covers content originating from third-parties. If an ICS only wants to allow only content about red convertible Chevy's and choose to remove content and ban anyone who posts about red hardtop Chevy's, that's they immunized prerogative. And, their 1st Amendment right as well. You appear to want something read into the law that simply isn't there.. Explain to me, if you will... how you get from immunizing NON publishers in CDA230... to citing "examples of a publisher exercising editorial discretion"... being a proof of the immunity applying to that publisher ? I covered that in a prior response. You are perpetually stuck on the label "publisher." The label is meaningless. Interactive computer service the the relevant definition. The plain purpose of the law in those twenty-six words is to immunize interactive computer services from traditional publisher liability. It's right there in those twenty-six words. One sentence that changed the internet. It has been scrutinized by the Courts for two decades. it says what it says; there's no need to read anything beyond its plain language. It is as simple as that.