Jump to content

Talk:Section 230

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Editing Zeran

[edit]

FYI - I'm currently working on a major overhaul of the Zeran v. AOL article so it's no longer a stub. I don't have time right now to work on this article too, but I thought I would mention it here, in case anybody wants to pull material from that article and post it here as a summary. From what I understand Z v. A is very important to Section 230. That material should be posted by the end of today (pacific time).

Other Countries

[edit]

Can we have links to versions of this law in other countries? I would add them if I knew what they were. I'm particularly interested in the state of things in Britain. A5 11:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist Basis for a 230 Defense

[edit]

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC and Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Associates distinguish that the 230 Defense applies only to tort liability.

Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. The imposition of tort liability on service providers for the communications of others represented, for Congress, simply another form of intrusive government regulation of speech....
Congress made a policy choice ... not to deter harmful online speech through the separate route of imposing tort liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties' potentially injurious messages.
Id. at 330-31 (emphasis added). The Zeran quotation, in context, refers to defamation and other forms of tort liability. The instant claims are grounded in the law of intellectual property and, therefore, do not, on a motion to dismiss, implicate Section 230 immunity. Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Associates 135 F.Supp.2d 409,415 (S.D.N.Y.,2001)

The suit brought against Craigslist does not plead liability under a tort, but instead under civil rights violations enforced under the FHA. This seems like another opportunity for the court to distinguish the overbroad language of section 230 as a non-defense under the FHA.

Civil rights claims as tort claims

[edit]

Begging to differ with the comment that the Craigslist FHA case doesn't plead liability under a tort, note that federal civil rights claims are treated as tort claims, or at least analogized to tort claims, for statute of limitations purposes, as an "injury to personal rights." Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/261/case.html. 71.65.205.89 14:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)MerileeNC[reply]

Help with formating

[edit]

Could someone help with formating & citation for Barret v. Rosenthal? I am wiped out, but at least got it added here. It's a CA Supreme Court case pubilshed last month, on Section 230. Thank you!Jance 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section 230 and Wikipedia

[edit]

Is this self reference really needed? Is Wikipedia actually such a significant part of the subject of section 230 that it justifies our preference no the mention ourselves in articles? Now if Wikipedia was a major part of the subject I could see it, but there must be hundreds of other examples we can use. I suggest the section be removed, you don't see other encyclopedias slipping in mentions of themselves when the subject crosses paths with them. 1 != 2 14:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind seeing the section broadened to talk about several prominent websites (and different types of websites) and the role that section 230 has in their everyday conduct, though I grant that a section that mentions Wikipedia only is lopsided.--Father Goose (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipated edits

[edit]

I plan on editing this page over the next few weeks in connection with http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cyberlaw --Boalt2761 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good. Do you see a suitable place to add some of this material back in?--Father Goose (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you fix the page title? The statutory reference is 47 USC 230, but it is Section 509 of the Communications Decency Act Ericgoldman (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(c)(2)?

[edit]

Not only is the titling of the page incorrect, but the page should also probably discuss 230(c)(2), which doesn't have as many cases interpreting it but is an important part of the immunity. Ericgoldman (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Tiers of Liability is Misleading

[edit]

This whole page needs revamping, but the three tiers of liability described by Madeleine Rodriguez's article is misleading at best. I propose ripping out the entire discussion of her article, which is more harmful than helpful. Ericgoldman (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Viewpoint Discrimination question

[edit]

I added information under the social media section dealing with the issues of alleged deplatforming and discrimination of conservatives by some of the major social media providers. Congressmen in both houses are talking about this and authoring legislation, it is a topic in several media outlets as well as at the White House. This should be covered in the article. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article

[edit]

I came here looking to see (1) where the line was, (2) what the Republicans thought, and (3) what the Democrats thought. I quickly found all three. Thanks for helping me quickly understand the issue WP contributors! --199.90.157.4 (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proper title of Section 230

[edit]

I recently made a set of edits that attempted to address misconceptions with the title of the statute. Section 230 is part of the Communications Act of 1934, and is properly referenced as Section 9 of the Communications Decency Act or Section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" is a non-sequitur (the CDA has only 9 sections). This is explained at length here: [1]. @Masem: can you please review and reconsider your reversions? BlakeEReid (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that callign this "Section 230 of the CDA" is a misnomer by popular media per that analysis, but looking around, most scholars (particularly the ones that are known as experts in this topic) that talk about this simply call it "Section 230", and as there's no conflict with any notable "Section 230" topic (that one act establishing a park is not really notable as a legislative act), just makes it easier to call it this. From that, explaining in a footnote the misnomer is the easiest way otherwise. Please not that we don't need to go into that much detail, and also, there are COI concerns in using your own source here for that. --Masem (t) 16:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://blakereid.org/section-230-of-what/

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Amount of time spent on EARN IT Act and Trump's EO

[edit]

Does anyone think that too much of the article is spent describing the EARN IT Act and Trump's EO? Trump's EO has been rescinded and was unenforceable to begin with, and the EARN IT act was unconstitutional in its original form and completely advisory in its updated form. Both were offered for political notoriety as opposed to efforts for real reform. In contrast, the PACT act is a substantive bill that addresses many of the concerns about 230 immunity. I think the two proposals that were purely political and without any effect take up too much space compared to the legitimate proposals that address section 230 issues.--ALR Student (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The politics of Section 230 really haven't been an issue until Trump's administration, and it is completely appropriate weight here, since there are still related political efforts on both sides of the aisle to affect S230. --Masem (t) 15:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that political efforts for Section 230 reform should be a prominent aspect to this page. My question is more about which reform proposals warrant more weight than others. For example, in its current form the EARN IT act is completely voluntary, and in its original form it was unconstitutional under Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) and decried as a political stunt to address perceived anti-conservative bias on social media. As stated in this article, Trump's EO was a reaction to Twitter labeling his tweets as misleading, and not a sincere interest in Section 230 reform. The Trump EO section also spends time talking about riots in Minnesota, which I think is not directly related to the EO. However, the PACT Act, for example, is the most comprehensive of all the Section 230 reform proposals. It addresses political discourse on social media, imposes a requirement for internet platforms to create a notification system for objectionable material, requires platforms publish statistics about what they remove and why, and even specifies lower standards for smaller companies that don't have the resources to compete with large companies. It sincerely addresses the breadth of issues under Section 230 immunity while the others serve only political ends. The PACT act is only discussed for one paragraph while the EARN It Act and Trump's EO are collectively discussed for twelve paragraphs. I think we could cut the second paragraph of the Trump section and add a few sentences into the third paragraph to explain the context for Trump signing the EO and we could cut the Minnesota paragraph entirely. The EARN IT act has its own article, so I don't think it requires such an in-depth explanation as part of a Section 230 article. I think we could cut all the commentary about the act and just keep how the bill passed and what it proposes to do. I propose we expand the sections for the other proposals, but the best way to do that is to write something for consideration rather than explain it here. I wrote an in-depth research paper about Section 230 and Section 230 reform in the spring, and one of my biggest take aways is that there is a flashy conversation about social media happening on the surface, but there are many concerns (i.e. effect on housing through Air bnb, product liability with Amazon) that are important but not discussed with the same frequency as social media. I just want to make sure all the topics are in balance.--ALR Student (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


ISP vs Discussion Platform

[edit]

Re. "Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against online discussion platforms in the early 1990s" - Someone made this change after contesting my argument that Section 230 was originally passed to protect ISPs. I still believe that the ISP explanation that was there previously is correct. An editor might want to consider whether this change was valid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonl (talk • contribs)

Neither stance are incorrect, its just one places the context historically (in response to lawsuits), the other as a rational (protecting ISP). The body describes these both. --Masem (t) 20:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it would be better to say "interactive computer services," since that's the characterization actually used in the text of Section 230? Jonl (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Section_230&oldid=1212883319"