tech enjoys a special immunity from
liability we should consider amending
section 230 for the privilege of 2:30
there has to be a bigger sense of
responsibility Facebook Twitter and
YouTube aren't open platforms they're
censors TV personalities and politicians
are calling for changes to section 230
the 1996 law that makes possible the
internet as we know it but they don't
seem to have a clue about what the law
actually says or who it really protects
the goal here Kim is not to get less
speech the goal is to get more speech
section 230 allows for the free exchange
of ideas on the internet and it may be
just as important to online free speech
as the First Amendment section 230 s
most important sentence reads as follows
no provider or user of an interactive
computer service shall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content
provider but a lot of people have found
creative ways of redefining what the law
says big tech made effectively a bargain
with Congress and a bargain with the
American people will be neutral will be
fair we won't be biased in exchange for
that we'll receive what is effectively a
federal subsidy neutrality is not a
condition of the law in fact section 230
was designed in part so that Internet
companies could discriminate by
filtering out content that's illegal
indecent or just otherwise objectionable
before section 230 online companies
feared that any moderation would make
them legally liable for user content
section 230 explicitly says that's not
the case good faith and voluntary
attempts to filter out unwanted posts
and users are okay without section 230
it would be hard for companies to avoid
lawsuits and criminal charges without
either becoming cesspools of totally
unmoderated speech or banning
user-generated speech entirely they're
becoming de-facto publishers their acts
actually the messengers they're not the
moderators of a of an open forum there
is no legal distinction in section 230
between a publisher and a platform the
word platform doesn't even appear what
matters for legal purposes is who is
responsible for creating particular web
content judgment calls about user speech
however poorly
executed and whatever ideological biases
are apparent just don't affect whether a
company is broadly protected by section
230 or not big because these giveaways
from government the sweetheart deal from
government where they can't be held
accountable big tech enjoys a special
immunity from liability people like to
pretend section 230 created a legal
loophole but the Congress that passed
section 230 back in 1996 was explicit
section 230 would not apply when it
comes to federal criminal laws and it
would not apply to intellectual property
law which means that copyright violators
and serious criminals do not get a free
pass because of section 230 what the law
does provide is limited protection from
criminal charges brought by state or
local law authorities and some immunity
from getting sued in civil court this
immunity is lost if a company creates
illegal content itself or if it edits
content in a way that contributes to its
illegality and it's lost if a company
participates in illegal acts to obtain
that content or otherwise engages in or
profits directly from some elicit action
in general section 230 is meant to leave
room for holding on line operators
accountable for their own sins but not
for those of their customers they're
gonna have this special immunity that
nobody else gets by the way they should
not discriminate section 230 doesn't
only benefit companies as attorney Jeff
kouzef author of the 26 words that
created the internet it says there are
also significant free speech benefits to
the public section 230 shields not just
providers of digital services from
litigation but the users of these
services - without it anyone could find
themselves liable for retweeting
reblogging or posting links to content
that is later found to break the law yet
for all the protections it provides to
readers writers academics posters
entrepreneurs activists and amateur
political pundits of every persuasion
section 230 is somehow become a
political pariah the political class
wants everyone to believe that the way
the US has policed the internet for the
past quarter century has actually been
lacks immoral and dangerous don't
believe them the future of free speech
and a lot more may depend on preserving
section 230
you