This seems more like a 1A case than a constitutional issue about sec 230, can someone explain? Apparently someone posted pro-ISIS content on Google, and Google claimed sec 230 protection. But it seems like a significant 1A issue if publishing pro-ISIS content (at least in a broad sense, not "everyone go kill infidel so-and-so right now") is illegal in the first place. The sec 230 angle is only about whether algorithmically promoting the objectional content amounted to editorial choices by Google, which would mean it was more than just a hosting platform.
And 9/11 could be observed to be pro-Al-Qaeda. Even if theres was an "editorial choice" involved, records of terroristic acts aren't obscene. This is a 1A issue.
While you’re generally correct, there is a procedural reason why the Section 230 issue comes up first. Section 230(c)(1) is a cut and dry immunity. It says: “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.”
If the provider meets the requirements of section 230, then there is no lawsuit, period. By contrast, the 1A analysis is fact-specific. “Kill all infidels” is protected, but “kill @throwaway81523 when he walks home from work on Tuesday at 6:30 pm” probably isn’t.
In a lawsuit cut and dry immunities can be addressed at the motion to dismiss stage. More fact specific inquiries often can’t be decided until later, on summary judgment.
Section 230 seems like such a nice compromise. It allows both moderated and unmoderated platforms and everything in between. It lets platforms try different approaches, both to moderation and promotion.
The only people who want to get rid of it seem to be extremists from one side or the other. But I worry we love in an age where the 10% who are loudest and craziest are the only ones being listened to...
7 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 31.8 ms ] threadIf the provider meets the requirements of section 230, then there is no lawsuit, period. By contrast, the 1A analysis is fact-specific. “Kill all infidels” is protected, but “kill @throwaway81523 when he walks home from work on Tuesday at 6:30 pm” probably isn’t.
In a lawsuit cut and dry immunities can be addressed at the motion to dismiss stage. More fact specific inquiries often can’t be decided until later, on summary judgment.
The only people who want to get rid of it seem to be extremists from one side or the other. But I worry we love in an age where the 10% who are loudest and craziest are the only ones being listened to...