Section 230 appears not to be what Zuckerburg thinks

It is I believe in place to let "users" block content they don't want to see not to allow forum moderators to block free speech. It also protects forums from liability over things people might say on their forums.


Support Us!

About LII
Get the law
Lawyer directory
Legal encyclopedia
Help out



LII U.S. Code Title 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 230

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

U.S. Code
Notes

prev | next
(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

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.
(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service

A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) No effect on communications privacy law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5) No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f) DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1) Internet

The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2) Interactive computer service

The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3) Information content provider

The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4) Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L. 115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)

I guess that means all rules on this forum should be lifted huh?

Read the First Amendment, there is no mention in the First Amendment that individuals or corporate entities cannot censor what they want. Only the Government is prohibited from censorship.

If you want to ride the high horse, go after the Texas State Legislature and the Governor for wanting to censor the libraries of our public schools. The next thing those clowns will want to do is have public book burnings.

There is a limit to the 1A though. Someone can not just yell "bomb" in a movie theater and incite a panic. Someone can not use violent language against people just because they want to say it. First amendment does not protect freedom to print and publish pedophilia, child abuse, etc.

The issues with some of the library in public schools is they have books (some required readings in other states, not sure about TX) which not only describe in detail pedophilia and child sexual abuse, but celebrate it and make it seem normal and mainstream.

The rules of this forum are good with me, do you have any issues with them?

Not exactly on topic dogcatcher but here is an interesting article on free speech and what reasons speech can be restricted.

https://accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/limits-free-speech-social-media

In reality section 230 was written to protect internet speech not to hinder it.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

No but you mentioned forum moderators blocking free speech like this statute is supposed to make private forum owners let people say whatever they want.

An interesting take, I am actually thinking about Twitter and Facebook not so much this forum. On the other hand who tells you what you can or cannot say? And who exactly has the right to violate your free speech rights? In reality also if some entity does block your speech and it has nothing to do with inciting violence, threats, screaming fire in a crowded theater, obscenity then why is it OK for anyone to block it? It is odd that so many will yell with great indignity over infringements on the 2A but the first amendment is seldom defended. As for saying "whatever they want" does that include saying you support a particular political figure reason enough in your mind to be blocked or banned from a forum? This recently happened to me on the Texags forum.

Nobody is violating anybody's free speech rights. Any private enterprise can regulate conduct on their platform however they want. The first amendment does not prohibit private businesses from censorship.

The only thing the first amendment does is prohibit the government from censoring speech. It doesn't mean that Facebook has to give you a platform to say whatever you want.

What he said... I don't understand all of the pissin' and moaning about censorship on a private platform. If you don't like their moderation, just go somewhere else.

Charlie

I'm in agreement. But is Facebook a private platform? Is Twitter a private platform?

Bingo.

and the same goes for jobs requiring vaccines. If you don't want to vax but the employer mandates it (not the feds) then either get the stick or move on. It isn't rocket science. This is america where individuals can do what they want (for the most part) with what they own. If you don't like it, go get something you own and do what you want with it.

Sorry Buck, it's not quite that simple. Without going into personal detail, let's just say that isn't universally applicable

They absolutely are.

Charlie

It appears once again we run up against the reading comprehension issue. Funny how would any of you feel if I told you to shut up? These are individuals acting as moderators, do they have the right to tell you what to think or say? Wouldn't it be interesting to meet one of the leftist moderators face to face and have them try to censor your speech? Or would you just say "OK your right"? As for Fckbook "giving" me a platform they make money off of the simple presence of anyone on their forums.

So if they are a "private" platform then why don't they keep your information private? I have never been on twitter but Fckbook tracks your every move if you have it on your phone. They follow any searches you do and put ads in your feed that match your searches. Is that what a private forum does?

Off topic a bit but you really feel that an employer has the right to force you to get a shot? Especially one that has killed over 20 thousand people? You feel an employer "owns" you? You ought to stick to Buckeye and dispense with the Texas part of your screen name.

Private means not a part of the government. Do you think social media companies are government owned?

There is legitimate censorship, dealing with threats, obscenity, breaking laws such as using platforms for sex trafficking or selling drugs but if the speech does not fall into that category it should be protected. I realize you couldn't have read section 230 or you just don't understand it but the reality of it is the statute was written to protect free speech. It was not written to give a forum the right to shut down political speech their moderators don't agree with.

Funny post, suppose a company like Facebook gave the government 400 plus million to organize an election in the favor of one political party? Which by the way did happen in 2020? Not part of government? Suppose said Facebook pushes Bidens propaganda for his administration? It would seem Facebook/Zuckerburg is a tool of the government especially since Facebook censors truth and dissenting opinions from the government narrative. Are the government and Facebook actually acting as separate entities? The troubling part is really how much influence does Zuckerburg have over our government? Is our government working for Facebook? Have you noticed how many politicians become multi millionaires?

Call the Easter Bunny, if anyone can help you it will be him.

Each platform your complaining about (TxAgs, FB, Twitter, etc.) all have rules they ask you to abid by to use THEIR service/platform. It's not a god or gov't given right to do so.

Your interpretation of 230 and how it applies to this is similar to my attempt to represent myself in court for a traffic violation when I was in college. After starting my defense, the judge pointed out to me, law libraries have two sides, Civil and Criminal. I did all the research and built my defense on Civil case law when I was charged with a criminal offense. Even though I didn't know WTF I was talking about, the judge found me not guilty (He was impressed with at least my attempt to prepare).

Section 230 includes two main provisions: one that protects online services and users from liability when they do not remove third-party content, and one that protects them from liability when they do remove content.

You also have the right to incoherently complain about any topic you wish, I'm not going to get in the middle of that. Carry on please...

Charlie

Whatever…I say zu__ him and the microchip he rode in on.

Not too terribly off topic, but yes a company does have the right to tell you what you need to do for employment in Texas. I am a business owner> If I wanted to, I could enforce a vaccine mandate. The fact I don't is my choice, but I have the right to do so in Texas as a business owner.

If I want to "censor" my employees on their social media I have the right to do that as well. Doesn't mean I do, but I can fire someone for what is said on social media. It isn't rocket science, it is just reality.

If you feel differently and have proof I can not do this, please let me know.

You should read the "terms of service", they do not stand by them. Can you identify what Facebooks "community standards" are? Suppose an entity takes government money like the Texasags forum. As far as that goes you go ahead and let them tell you what you can say or not say. What about them treating people differently. If a company takes government money they should have to respect our constitutional rights.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/...ubsidizing-facebook-and-the-next-bubble/

But you also have the right to keep your head in the sand, let private individuals guide the narrative at your expense. Remember when the first amendment is exhausted the second becomes your last line of defense, personally I prefer free speech to chaos and gunfire in the streets.

Bingo.

and the same goes for jobs requiring vaccines. If you don't want to vax but the employer mandates it (not the feds) then either get the stick or move on. It isn't rocket science. This is america where individuals can do what they want (for the most part) with what they own. If you don't like it, go get something you own and do what you want with it.[/quote]

Off topic a bit but you really feel that an employer has the right to force you to get a shot? Especially one that has killed over 20 thousand people? You feel an employer "owns" you? You ought to stick to Buckeye and dispense with the Texas part of your screen name.
[/quote]

Not too terribly off topic, but yes a company does have the right to tell you what you need to do for employment in Texas. I am a business owner> If I wanted to, I could enforce a vaccine mandate. The fact I don't is my choice, but I have the right to do so in Texas as a business owner.

If I want to "censor" my employees on their social media I have the right to do that as well. Doesn't mean I do, but I can fire someone for what is said on social media. It isn't rocket science, it is just reality.

If you feel differently and have proof I can not do this, please let me know. [/quote]

Well suppose I took your "censorship" personally? Made you pay for violating my rights? There are such things as civil rights attorneys. I obviously would not work for anyone with a philosophy of control. Odd that you seem proud of your "power".

I thought the controversy with pedophilia and other subjects being required reading is over parents’ objections to certain subjects being taught in schools. There are books for children being included in curriculum that depict graphic oral sex, and parents felt it was inappropriate for elementary and middle school children to be reading it in a book. That’s a lot different than banning pedophilia in a novel.

Child pornography is banned, because children can’t consent. But a novel that has a scene where a child is raped by an adult is most likely going to be protected speech. Arguing whether it’s appropriate for children of a certain age, or whether it should be taught in school at all, isn’t a first amendment issue. It’s parents trying to parent. If the government were to ban a book entirely, that would be a violation of the first amendment.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater was never law. It was a remark made by a Supreme Court justice and had nothing to do with the case he was discussing. The case that was being decided was overturned later by the Supreme Court.



https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Before I decide there is no reason to try to reason with the unreasonable the point I am trying to make is forum moderation like Facebook does creates sheep. It reinforces there stupidity when they see people get banned who are trying to get truth into the conversation. It makes them believe the leftist propaganda as anyone who dares disagree is blocked or banned. This is very dangerous as it creates masses of idiots, never underestimate the power of large groups of idiots.

I agree with all of that, but when you state that first amendment protections apply to posting on Facebook, you sound like an idiot.

You are correct about the writing part. I was thinking child porn and such things and got mixed up and wrote print and publish. Was specifically thinking of the stuff josh duggar got busted for, as my daughter has followed that closely, but got twisted in my head of the library books. You are absolutely correct about those books. I was not trying to equate banning books in libraries with 1A issues. I used that second paragraph to address the part of one of the responses that stated something about such actions.
Thank you for clarifying my mistake

no worries, sir.

social media owns part of our government

They don't have to own you to modify the contract. Employment at will in Texas, "either party in an employment relationship may modify any of the terms or conditions of employment, or terminate the relationship altogether, for any reason, or no particular reason at all, with or without advance notice"

The social media platforms have become the de-facto public square, Congress if it chose to do so, could declare it so and extend First Amendment protections to them. The social media platforms can enforce their rules as long as they are considered private.