Re:Judges Rule Big Tech's Free Ride on Section 230 Is Over
by AnthonyMouse on Friday August 30, 2024 @01:48AM
(#41398004)
> The CDA was about making it clearly criminal to send obscene content to minors via the internet.
That part of the law was unconstitutional and pretty quickly got struck down, but it still goes to the same point that the intent of Congress was for sites to remove stuff and not be "common carriers" that leave everything up.
> Section 230 was intended to clarify the common carrier role of ISPs and similar providers of third party content. It does have a subsection to clarify that attempting to remove objectionable content doesn't remove your common carrier protections, but I don't believe that was a response to pre-CDA status quo.
If you can forgive Masnick's chronic irateness he does a decent job of explaining the situation:
That part of the law was unconstitutional and pretty quickly got struck down, but it still goes to the same point that the intent of Congress was for sites to remove stuff and not be "common carriers" that leave everything up.
> Section 230 was intended to clarify the common carrier role of ISPs and similar providers of third party content. It does have a subsection to clarify that attempting to remove objectionable content doesn't remove your common carrier protections, but I don't believe that was a response to pre-CDA status quo.
If you can forgive Masnick's chronic irateness he does a decent job of explaining the situation:
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/29/third-circuits-section-2...