Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 9:59 am
It's not exactly clear what you mean by "censor" and "internet medium" here. But, as discussed, if by "censor" you mean "decline to broadcast" and if by "internet medium" you mean the designer of a social media app then what you're saying is that you want anybody who designs a social media app to be legally obliged to use that app to broadcast anything that anybody wants them to broadcast via it. i.e. they'd be be legally prohibited from declining to use their app to broadcast anything. Would you legally allow them to censure (i.e. comment negatively on) any of the content that they're legally obliged to broadcast?
Well, the problem here is that "declining to broadcast", in the case of the threat to national security, that the Biden mails show should be punishable. Especially if that same company does "broadcast" the fake news that it was a Russian plot, in order to cover that fact, is in itself a threat to national security. Fact checking is for off. Plus, what if it takes 5 years to fact check? With 20 days to the elections when that news broke, waiting for fact checking, or investigation by the authorities is also problematic.
Your example of a phone company is a good one. It shows that for example Internet service providers, platforms such as youtube, facebook and twitter and web hosting companies take a different position. Censoring on political bias is just as disgraceful as censoring on skin colour, for example. However, after a court case, proven crimes should be prohibited in the country. Such as beheadings done by Isis (or worse). So, those companies should be held accountable. In the case of the Biden emails, those companies took that power into their own hands.
Section 230 (thanks for pointing it out) clears the hosting companies from impressions of guilt if a customer does something that they are not allowed to do. They are obliged to block it, take it down and report it. That does not mean, however that they can be judge, jury and executioner. Especially not in cases of news agencies with more than 50 readers (random number). So, if a company is cleared from guilt by section 230, then they can't "decline to broadcast" on their own accord. If that is the case, we must assume that allowing other stories that appear to be illegal, is done purposefully and as such, those companies should be prosecuted.
You are making a case to choose between allowing for propaganda (allowing for lies by broadcasting companies without punishment), or allowing for censorship (allowing for blocking by broadcasting companies). But that choice is a complete misrepresentation of the matter. Both are problematic in an open and free society! The one automatically leads to the other. The The matter concerns the position of the person doing something, as
Marvin_Edwards pointed out in the beginning.
1) A private person in the streets can more or less say what comes to mind. Even plain lies are often just shrugged off. But, putting that into writing can be prosecuted, depending on the situation.
2) A news agency, with a reach of a lot more people and in placing their messages on paper, or the internet, or in "the ether", is liable (or the reporter) all the time. That is because it is stored and the message reaches many people. So, we (the people) demand honesty. And rightly so.
3) The mail office is never liable for delivering the paper. In fact, declining to deliver is punishable, except in the case of known criminal behaviour.
In the same way, we can look at the internet:
1) A private person in the streets can put stuff into writing on a profile that normally will not be prosecuted. Messages on social media, below news articles are also not prosecuted. There is a small reach to people, plus, who takes that seriously? It is the news article that is taken seriously and has a reach.
2) A news agency, with a reach of many more people, is required to fact check. If it is proven to place proven lies on the internet, it is liable (or the reporter is, depending). That is because it is stored and the message reaches many people. So, we (the people) demand honesty. And rightly so.
3) The Internet service providers, platforms such as youtube, facebook and twitter and web hosting companies take a different position. They
SHOULD never be liable for delivering the message. In fact, declining to deliver
SHOULD be punishable, except in the case of known criminal behaviour.
=====================================================
The above is actually exactly what section 230 is there for. The choice between censorship and propaganda is not the actual matter at hand. Both are unallowable. So, repealing it, as mr Trump wants is actually not what he wants. Because under this act, the blame goes to the papers that made up the Russian Plot and to the broadcasters that blocked the email news. And they should be prosecuted. That, until now, they have been getting away with that is not the cause of section 230, in my opinion, but more the way it is explained.
I say this because of these texts in section 230:
A) Referring to my 3rd point(s) above:
Section 230, part C wrote:
(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]
B) Referring to my 2nd point(s) above:
Section 230, parts D and E wrote:
(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 law Nothing 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.
I actually think that it is exactly what it should be and exactly what Marv means. And, as said above, it is not being acted on properly by the law. The matters with (and surrounding) the emails should be punished just as harshly as any matter that impacts the freedom of the press and speech to such a degree.
This actually also satisfies
Greta Sculptor1 Count Lucanor 's conversations. Section 230 addresses what should be regulated where and because of that also who is liable in what situation. Again: All that is needed is for the LAW to catch up and start prosecuting twitter, facebook and youtube for censoring without legal cause, while simultaneously not censoring a proven lie. Clearly there was a politically motivated bias. Had this been about my personal posts versus another's personal posts, there would not have been an issue, because we are private individuals. But this is about well read newspaper, presidential candidates and press secretaries and DNI's. It might even go so far as treason (on behalf of democrats.....with ties to the CCP), depending on WHY these things were done.
Also: I was checking to see how we do this in The Netherlands. We do not appear to have a law like this. It just falls under the general media law, which includes intellectual property, if I understand correctly. I might get back to this at a later time, IF I can find out more, because that is proving to be quite a challenge.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant