SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it-only-works-until-it-is-killed dept.
The Recorder reports on efforts to weaken Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act:
[...] §230 has proven to be one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet. In the past two decades, we've (EFF) filed well over 20 legal briefs in support of §230, probably more than on any other issue, in response to attempts to undermine or sneak around the statute. Thankfully, most of these attempts were unsuccessful.
[...] The first wave of attacks on §230's protections came from plaintiffs who tried to plead around §230 in an attempt to force intermediaries to take down online speech they didn't like.
[...] The second wave of attacks came from plaintiffs trying to deny §230 protection to ordinary users who reposted content authored by others
[...] Another wave of attacks, also in the mid-2000s, came as plaintiffs tried to use the Fair Housing Act to hold intermediaries responsible when users posted housing advertisements that violated the law.
[...] We are now squarely in the middle of a fourth wave of attack—efforts to hold intermediaries responsible for extremist or illegal online content. The goal, again, seems to be forcing intermediaries to actively screen users and censor speech. Many of these efforts are motivated by noble intentions, and the speech at issue is often horrible, but these efforts also risk devastating the Internet as we know it.
[...] the current attacks are unfortunately not only in the courts. The more dangerous threats are in Congress. Both the House and Senate are considering bills that would exempt charges under federal and state criminal and civil laws related to sex trafficking from §230's protections—the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act (S. 1693) (SESTA) in the Senate, and the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (H.R. 1865) in the House. While the legislators backing these laws are largely well meaning, and while these laws are presented as targeting commercial classified ads websites like Backpage.com, they don't stop there. Instead, SESTA and its house counterpart punish small businesses that just want to run a forum where people can connect and communicate. They will have disastrous consequences for community bulletin boards and comment sections, without making a dent in sex trafficking. In fact, it is already a federal criminal offense for a website to run ads that support sex trafficking, and §230 doesn't protect against prosecutions for violations of federal criminal laws.
Ultimately, SESTA and its house counterpart would impact all platforms that host user speech, big and small, commercial and noncommercial. [...] Under these bills, if any of this user-generated content somehow related to sex trafficking, even without the platform's knowledge, the platform could be held liable.
Also posted on EFF's website.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Sunday November 19 2017, @01:18PM (1 child)
There's nothing here that is constitutionally guaranteed. It's about this: You allow comments on your website, or run a forum. Someone posts something illegal. You don't delete the illegal content, maybe because you didn't ever see it. You go to jail.
The legislation in question says: If you're just providing a platform for other people to post content, you cannot be held legally liable for what those other people say. This is essential, because otherwise no one would ever want to risk providing such a platform. Or, at least, only the really big companies that can afford armies of moderators, and armies of lawyers to defend themselves.
This latest example is typical. Take an emotional issue ("it's for the children") as a wedge, to take away protections and/or rights. Whether Congress is being naive (likely), or whether Congress is being paid to do this by the established players (more likely) - either way, this is something you desperately do not want to happen.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19 2017, @04:03PM
Sounds unconstitutional to me. It could easily be argued that this would result in no one wanting to accept user-generated speech, which would be qualify as a chilling effect on freedom of speech.