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 (12302)	12/7/2019 10:20:00 AM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

The law provides a CONDITIONAL exemption. [ Really? What are they? Perhaps you can quote them from directly the statute?: law.cornell.edu including clear acknowledgement of the intent of the law Read the minutes and statements of the architects of the statute, Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR) and former Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA). They wrote it. They shepherded it through to enactment. They will both tell you that it was never about neutrality. Indeed, that it was quite the opposite. They wanted platforms to be free to make those judgments for themselves without fear of liability like Prodigy and without fear of government interference. They have also been asked about this recently coined distinction between publisher and platform, and they mystified as the next person because it is a distinction without a difference in the scope of Section 230. Distributors are merely a subset of publishers in traditional law, and 230 immunizes publishers. They will tell you that there is a period at the end of that sentence. That the deplorable state of jurisprudence in this country too often willingly tolerates that wrongful taking of cookies. I get it. You don't like the law, and don't like the mountain of jurisprudence developed over the past two decades that has interpreted and applied it broadly and consistently. You would prefer activist judges who legislate from the bench and change the intent and meaning of the law as enacted by the legislature. The problem there is that is not the role or purview of judges, who are not elected officials are are not accountable to the electorate; that's the role of the legislature. They are solely responsible for enacting laws, and if they pass undesirable law then the electorate can replace them with someone who can change it. In any event, it is most definitely not the job of the courts to do that unless the law in question is unconstitutional. In the history of Section 230, activist judges in lower courts do come along occasionally and issue opinions contrary to the law, but they have been consistently overturned by higher courts that know what their proper role in the process is. Every time. So, that insistently demanded exemption from civil liability... earned or not... doesn't even begin to impose real limits, even in civil liability, for those actions taken outside the sphere of the editorial in publishing... where CDA 230 just doesn't really matter at all. Say... if you are convicted of criminal conspiracy... for instance. The CDA has a specific exception for federal criminal law. Non-issue. That's correct... but, content CEASES TO BE THIRD PARTY... the moment you exercise ANY editorial control over that content... so the law offering conditional liability limits is made irrelevant... at that point. Oh. My. God. I wish I had seen that before bothering with any of this.That is simply FALSE. The exercise of editorial control by interactive computer services is EXACTLY what Section 230 immunizes. That is indisputable. It is undeniable. It is incontrovertible. Editorial control encompasses decisions to publish, not publish or remove content from publication. That is the very essence of editorial control and discretion. Moreover, it encompasses the editing of the third-party content, as long as the edits do not change the meaning of the content in such a way as to render into something legally actionable. At that point, the ICS becomes an information provider, and not immune from liability. But, simply exercising editorial control? Entirely immune from liability. Moving on. Some horses can't be led to water.