- Jan 25, 2013
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
I read Section 230 weeks ago and went through arguments about it here at that time.It would be a real help if you would please post using color that I can see/read without causing eye strain.
1. Not a single thing I have posted is untrue. In fact, I have repeatedly included a link to the referenced statute in my posts.
Interesting that you, who claims to be knowledgeable of the subject have repeatedly failed to do.
Anyway, if you think I’ve been anything but completely honest, please feel free to quote me and we can go from there.
2. The portion of Section 230 I referenced in my last post was in addition to my previous post, not a contradiction or change. If you actually knew what is in Section 230, and were honest, I wouldn’t need to explain to you.
Once again, here is a link to Section 230; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...2011-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230.pdf
The language is simple and unambiguous. Section 230 protects providers from legal actions resulting from content posted by users, and allows the provider the freedom to censor “material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, exces- sively violent, harassing, or otherwise objec- tionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”.
Again, to be absolutely clear, there is nothing in Section 230 that states, or implies, that in exchange for protection against legal actions resulting from content posted by a user that any provider will not censor any users posted content.
Disagree? Prove it with verifiable facts, along with associated links.
Continuing to pull excuses/lies out of your ass will not suffice.
I know that what you said in one post as being explicitly permitted, i.e "label false/misleading content", is not explicitly permitted. (those quoted words are yours, not Section 230's)
But you didn't quote it.
Then you repeated the claim that it is explicitly permitted.
But you didn't quote it ... again.
If it was explicitly permitted you would have quoted it ... explicitly.
In any post.