a quick summary for all you with questions about the CDA (Section 230).

HEY PEOPLES! I’ve been seeing a lot of questions and misinformation going around about the executive order (not to mention the fake news that’s been trending on r/ POLITICS). So I wanted to do a quick summary for all of you peoples who want a short but in-depth explanation about Section 230. Moreover my legal thesis in law school was on Section 230 of the CDA the very law the executive order today is affecting.

Here is a brief explanation:

-A publisher is an entity that controls the content that they present to a user—Think of CNN. Because they are in control of the content being presented (like a news article) they are legally responsible for it and any fake news that they publish (defamation for example) even if they hire someone else to write it. The less control they exert over the content they publish the less likely they will be considered a publisher (and less likely to be held responsible for the content).

-In 1996 Congress passed the CDA which includes Section 230. Section 230 was passed for two reasons to stop the spread of pornography on the internet and at the same time to allow other speech to live freely.

-Section 230 basically stated that any internet platform which hosts other users is not responsible for the content posted by those users (and therefore not considered a publisher). So if a user were to post leaked naked pictures on Facebook then Facebook could not be held jointly liable for hosting those pictures EVEN IF THEY DID NOT REMOVE THE PICTURES. The intent by congress was that if we protect these companies from liability from users then they will avoid taking action by limiting and censoring posts and as such speech.

-However Section 230 contains a clause which has been the subject of a lot of legal debate. 230©(2)(A) provides that even if a social media platform exerts control over material that is “obscene lewd lascivious filthy excessively violent harassing or otherwise objectionable” then it still cannot be considered a publisher (remember that exerting control over content usually makes you legally responsible for that content).

-The problem is that the clause was almost unequivocally referring to violence and porn but federal courts (who knows why) began interpreting “otherwise objectional” as anything that a platform finds offensive. As such social media platforms were able to ban and censor speech just because they found it offensive. Thus exerting control and still immune under the language of 230©(2)(A).

-In addition to the vagueness of the term “otherwise objectionable”. Some promoters of free speech argued that 230©(2)(A) is an explicit condition/clause. In other words a platform can ban things considered “obscene lewd etc…” without being defined as a publisher (exerting control) but as soon as they begin to exert control over content that does not meet these criteria explicitly listed then they are risking moving into publisher territory and no longer immune from lawsuits based on the content posted on their website.

-Trump’s executive order is attempting to clarify the law and the enforcement of the law. The executive order is basically saying if you begin to ban or control content that is not under the list in 230©(2)(A) then you’re going to be considered a publisher. So social media companies have a choice they can back off and allow free public discourse to take place on the internet all the while enjoying their (very generous) lawsuit immunity or they can exercise their free speech rights of association and ban everything to hell but then they no longer have the immunity.

I’ll try to answer as many questions as I can in the comments. Hope this helps!

submitted by /u/nuttysand
[link] [comments]

from /r/Technology https://ift.tt/36DGYHM