US Supreme Court leaves protections for internet companies unscathed

Re:US Supreme Court leaves protections for internet companie... by dragonwriter on Friday May 19, 2023 @12:35PM (#36003855)

> This isn’t all that surprising; for all the tsuris regarding 230, the statute and the intent behind it seem quite clear; the drama is that opponents of big tech companies don’t like the statute, not that there’s a real claim that it’s been misinterpreted.

While Section 230 was asserted among the defenses in the case, the Supreme Court decision didn’t address it at all, instead finding the underlying claim failed as a matter of law, making Section 230 immunity irrelevant. The headline saying that it left 230 protections unchanged is technically true, in the same sense as one saying that it left, say, the scope of liability under the Espionage Act in place would be.

But its also misleading clickbait, for much the same reason as one saying that it left, say, the scope of liability under the Espionage Act in place would be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court leaves protections for internet companie... by ajross on Friday May 19, 2023 @12:56PM (#36004159)

That's always the structure of such a case, though. Courts don't in general make big pronouncements where they don't need to, they find as narrowly as they can. Nonetheless, this case was an arrow fired directly at section 230. And the court didn't take the bait.

It's true the finding wasn't "about" section 230, but to say the case wasn't about 230 is missing the point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court leaves protections for internet companie... by elpool2 on Friday May 19, 2023 @01:52PM (#36004848)

Yeah but you can't pretend this case had nothing to do with section 230. The question in the petition before the court was "Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations".

[ Parent | on HN ]