Sen @HawleyMO is so painfully wrong about #Section230, someone oughta sue Yale Law School for his opinions
Just kidding. That’s not how law works! But it’s about as nuts as suing websites for what users say
Let’s start with why Rep. Chris Cox (𝙍-CA) wrote 230 back in 1995...
Just kidding. That’s not how law works! But it’s about as nuts as suing websites for what users say
Let’s start with why Rep. Chris Cox (𝙍-CA) wrote 230 back in 1995...
#Section230 protects “tech platforms” just as it protects National Review’s site, or a user’s (ahem, Trump's) retweet of someone else’s defamatory statements
230 DOES Internet media differently from other print & broadcasting, because they ARE different
230 DOES Internet media differently from other print & broadcasting, because they ARE different
Traditional publishers review content pre-publication but Internet media just can’t b/c:
—SCALE: billions of pieces of content created daily
—SPEED: much content is real-time
Instead they rely on inherently imperfect content moderation AFTER “publication”
techdirt.com/blog/?tag=cont…
—SCALE: billions of pieces of content created daily
—SPEED: much content is real-time
Instead they rely on inherently imperfect content moderation AFTER “publication”
techdirt.com/blog/?tag=cont…
Two cases led Rep. Cox to write #Section230
Cubby v. CompuServe (1991): an Internet provider that undertook no pre-screening efforts was not liable for third-party content, similar to common carriers like telephone companies—unless it had notice of potential illegality
Cubby v. CompuServe (1991): an Internet provider that undertook no pre-screening efforts was not liable for third-party content, similar to common carriers like telephone companies—unless it had notice of potential illegality
Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995): taking ANY measures to moderate third-party content to create a "family-friendly" environment made an Internet provider liable for ALL of its third-party, user-generated content, as with traditional publishers
These cases created the "Moderator's Dilemma": any effort to monitor or moderate user content increased a website's legal liability
Congress enacted #Section230 to remove such disincentives—BECAUSE Internet media aren’t like traditional publishers and MUST be treated differently
Congress enacted #Section230 to remove such disincentives—BECAUSE Internet media aren’t like traditional publishers and MUST be treated differently
Hawley’s own “lack of familiarity with the case law” leads him to multiple confusions/errors
230 never shielded Backpage from either (a) federal prosecution or (b) civil liability or state prosecution for content it helped to create, even only “in part”
230 never shielded Backpage from either (a) federal prosecution or (b) civil liability or state prosecution for content it helped to create, even only “in part”
Even before SESTA/FOSTA came into effect, Backpage executives plead guilty to federal criminal charges and the site was shut—because 230 did NOT shield them, as Hawley claims blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/…
Same for MyRedBook and RentBoy
blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/…
Same for MyRedBook and RentBoy
blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/…
Hawley’s confusion may stem from Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016), which held that 230 protected BP from CIVIL liability for site design decisions
But 230 NEVER protected BP for sex trafficking ads it helped to create
docs.techfreedom.org/TechFreedom_Le…
But 230 NEVER protected BP for sex trafficking ads it helped to create
docs.techfreedom.org/TechFreedom_Le…
230 protects only interactive computer service (ICS) providers not information content providers ICP). A site becomes an ICP if it’s responsible, even “IN PART,” for the creation of content
Rep Chris Cox, author of 230, calls “in part” the two most important words in the statute
Rep Chris Cox, author of 230, calls “in part” the two most important words in the statute
Roommates. com was held liable for racially discriminatory housing ads because its site design solicited race-based housing preferences from users
More generally, if a site edits alters/modifies content to change its meaning (“Fred is n̵o̵t̵ a criminal”), 230 WON'T protect them
More generally, if a site edits alters/modifies content to change its meaning (“Fred is n̵o̵t̵ a criminal”), 230 WON'T protect them
Far from rewriting #Section230, the courts have simply given effect to its “in part” language in determining whether a site is an ICS or an ICP
That's two Hawley #BadLegalTake tweets down, four to go!
That's two Hawley #BadLegalTake tweets down, four to go!
False. Go directly back to Yale; do not pass Go; do not collect $200
“Tech platforms”—and other sites/services—are doing what Congress WANTED: monitoring/removing objectionable content w/o perverse incentives created by the Stratton Oakmont & Cubby cases
“Tech platforms”—and other sites/services—are doing what Congress WANTED: monitoring/removing objectionable content w/o perverse incentives created by the Stratton Oakmont & Cubby cases
SCOTUS struck down the CDA as unconstitutional CENSORSHIP, leaving only #Section230
It doesn’t change 230’s plain meaning, That’s how legislation works, bro. These were originally separate bills with CLEARLY different intentions that got melded together
It doesn’t change 230’s plain meaning, That’s how legislation works, bro. These were originally separate bills with CLEARLY different intentions that got melded together
Hawley: “230 was added to give platforms immunity from suit to take down content (in good faith)”
Actually, this is only one of three SEPARATE immunities: 230(c)(2)(A)
(c)(1) says the publisher/platform distinction he and other conservatives keep harping on just isn’t a thing
Actually, this is only one of three SEPARATE immunities: 230(c)(2)(A)
(c)(1) says the publisher/platform distinction he and other conservatives keep harping on just isn’t a thing
Not relevant here, but (c)(2)(B) protects those who provide “technical means” for content removal to others — and because they’re not doing the removing, there’s no good faith requirement here
(Stay tuned for an amicus brief from us on this next week in the MalwareBytes case)
(Stay tuned for an amicus brief from us on this next week in the MalwareBytes case)
Um, yeah, man, SCOTUS held CDA’s “obscenity requirements” (censorship, cough cough) were UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a vote of 7-2, including Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy
We’ve already debunked the alter/modify claim. The rest was the POINT of the law!
We’ve already debunked the alter/modify claim. The rest was the POINT of the law!
Again, 230(c)(1) abolishes the publisher/distributor distinction
And the courts haven’t “expanded immunity.” But Hawley thinks he can con his followers into believing “the courts” (mainly, Republican appointees) have done something nefarious (they haven’t)
And the courts haven’t “expanded immunity.” But Hawley thinks he can con his followers into believing “the courts” (mainly, Republican appointees) have done something nefarious (they haven’t)
Hawley’s “lack of familiarity with the case law” seems to be as severe as his “lack of familiarity with the plain text of the statute”
And Hawley's idea of “reform” is empowering any 2 of 5 FTC Commissioners to shut down a social media company for not being “fair” techfreedom.org/hawley-propose…
Make no mistake: Hawley tries to frame his arguments as being a define of free speech, but his real agenda to is give government unprecedented leverage over social media companies
That, and advancing his own political ambitions, of course
What 230 actually says:
That, and advancing his own political ambitions, of course
What 230 actually says:
No, we can't sue Yale for Hawley's bad legal takes
And the WHOLE POINT of 230 is: you can't sue websites for bad things their users do/say
As @charlescwcooke notes, 230 IS tort reform—and solidly conservative. Read the piece that prompted Hawley's rant
nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/…
And the WHOLE POINT of 230 is: you can't sue websites for bad things their users do/say
As @charlescwcooke notes, 230 IS tort reform—and solidly conservative. Read the piece that prompted Hawley's rant
nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/…
.@HawleyMO has attacked our integrity, and continued to dig himself in even deeper by misstating why Backpage wasn't shut down even faster than it was (and WITHOUT SESTA)
Read our response thread here (and scroll up to read his attacks on us):
Read our response thread here (and scroll up to read his attacks on us):
