'Because the First Amendment gives wide latitude to private platforms that choose to prefer their own political viewpoints, Congress can (in the words of the First Amendment) 'make no law' to change this result.'
- Chris Cox (R), co-author of Section 230
knightfoundation.org/for-rep-chris-…

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the most widely misunderstood technology law in the world, which is wild, given that it's only 26 words long!

techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hel…

1/

Wow... Who lied to you?

Websites do not fall into either publisher or non-publisher categories. There is no platform vs publisher distinction.

Additionally the term 'Platform' has no legal definition or significance with regard to websites.

All websites are Publishers.

Wrong

'Id. at 803 AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by §230's immunity.'
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit…

.Eric Trump and Donald Trump both tweeted links to materials containing the allegedly defamatory statements.
The court says Section 230 protects these tweets.
- Coomer v. Donald J. Trump for President
blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/… via Eric Goldman (he/him)

Wow... Who lied to you?

Websites do not fall into either publisher or non-publisher categories. There is no platform vs publisher distinction.

Additionally the term 'Platform' has no legal definition or significance with regard to websites.

All websites are Publishers.

'Id. at 803 AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by §230's immunity.'
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit…

For a few years, we've been tracking congressional proposals to reform Section 230. I'm excited that this tracker will now be hosted Lawfare. Quinta and I explain the project here: lawfaremedia.org/article/why-we…. And you can find the tracker here: lawfaremedia.org/resources/sect…

'Because the First Amendment gives wide latitude to private platforms that choose to prefer their own political viewpoints, Congress can (in the words of the First Amendment) 'make no law' to change this result.'
- Chris Cox (R), co-author of Section 230
knightfoundation.org/for-rep-chris-…

Facebook is a Publisher, that's how 230 works. What's your point?

'Id. at 803 AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by §230's immunity.'
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit…

Tell them what?
The Pirate Bay has never been sued in the US.
Napster was sued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (which amends 230 for copyright).
Legal challenges Free Speech Triumphs in Wikileaks Case
aclu.org/news/free-spee…
Your Bad 230 Takes is the joke.

'Because the First Amendment gives wide latitude to private platforms that choose to prefer their own political viewpoints, Congress can (in the words of the First Amendment) 'make no law' to change this result.'
- Chris Cox (R), co-author of Section 230
knightfoundation.org/for-rep-chris-…

Abolishing Section 230 would not revoke any company's right to flag or completely remove people and content from their sites.

You have no right to use private property you don't own without the owner's permission.

Not must to learn from there. 230 isn't a loop hole.

Section 230 is what allows these sites to remove harmful content without the threat of innumerable lawsuits over every other piece of content on their site.

Section 230 is all about putting the liability on whichever party created the violation under the law. If a website is hosting the content, but someone else created the content, the liability should go to the creator of the content, not the host.

Your First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression without Government Interference, does not override anyone else's First Amendment right to not Associate with you and your Speech on their private property.

Amazed this tweet is still up.

230 leaves in place something that law has long recognized: direct liability. If someone has done something wrong, then the law can hold them responsible for it.

There is no chance that you haven’t been corrected repeatedly by actual experts about what 230 actually is.

I can only assume that you are purposely choosing to keep getting 230 wrong.

It might be the simplest law on the books, ‘If you didn’t say it; you’re not liable for it’.

Who lied to you?

'Id. at 803 AOL falls squarely within this traditional definition of a publisher and, therefore, is clearly protected by §230's immunity.'
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit…