Re:FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
by magicalist on Thursday October 15, 2020 @06:30PM
(#24794981)
> the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law
Can you give an example limit you're imagining that would pass muster? To me
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of 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
doesn't leave much to the imagination, and AFAIK courts have consistently backed that up.
Can you give an example limit you're imagining that would pass muster? To me
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of 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
doesn't leave much to the imagination, and AFAIK courts have consistently backed that up.