So... can anyone explain to me why social media gets special protections from defamation?

[Wolven_Hour]

Under section 230 internet publishers can post whatever defamatory information they want about anything and be completely shielded from any lawsuit. People deny this is what 230 does but it's true, look it up. The only exception is for child pornography.
Even revenge porn websites are shielded by section 230.
Victims of defamation can still sue the people who create defamatory content but it is easy to be anonymous on the internet which has left victims powerless to take down defamatory, libelous information said about them online.

But I am not posting this to debate 230, rather I'd like to ask defenders of 230 why shouldn't other publishers also be granted 230's protections?

Newspapers, cable News, and book publishers can all be sued for publishing defamation yet online publications which is where 50 percent of Americans get their news get complete immunity.

What is the justification for this?

 

[ASHES]

Under section 230 internet publishers can post whatever defamatory information they want about anything and be completely shielded from any lawsuit. People deny this is what 230 does but it's true, look it up. The only exception is for child pornography.
Even revenge porn websites are shielded by section 230.
Victims of defamation can still sue the people who create defamatory content but it is easy to be anonymous on the internet which has left victims powerless to take down defamatory, libelous information said about them online.

But I am not posting this to debate 230, rather I'd like to ask defenders of 230 why shouldn't other publishers also be granted 230's protections?

Newspapers, cable News, and book publishers can all be sued for publishing defamation yet online publications which is where 50 percent of Americans get their news get complete immunity.

What is the justification for this?

User. Created. Content.

 

[joluoto]

Okay, so Section 230 defend Internet platforms from stupid shit their users post on them. Basically protects this forum from the sh*t we post. It's on us, not the forum. If someone is here issues defamatory statements the person doing that is liable, not the forum itself (though it's against the board rules I am pretty sure).

There would be alot more censorship on the Internet if the internet services actually were liable for what was posted.

 

[BlueTex]

Traditional publishers have plenty of time to review the content created by others before publishing. For instance, every newspaper that publishes content from readers subjects that content to review before publishing.

 

[Wolven_Hour]

Okay, so Section 230 defend Internet platforms from stupid shit their users post on them. Basically protects this forum from the sh*t we post. It's on us, not the forum. If someone is here issues defamatory statements the person doing that is liable, not the forum itself (though it's against the board rules I am pretty sure).

There would be alot more censorship on the Internet if the internet services actually were liable for what was posted.

And censoring slander is a bad thing because?

The argument seems to be it would be too difficult? Doesn't seem like a good justification to me to post crap which ruins people's lives.

 

[Wolven_Hour]

Traditional publishers have plenty of time to review the content created by others before publishing. For instance, every newspaper that publishes content from readers subjects that content to review before publishing.

Why can't user created content also be held subject for review?

 

[Allan]

Victims of defamation can still sue the people who create defamatory content but it is easy to be anonymous on the internet which has left victims powerless to take down defamatory, libelous information said about them online.

You're not anonymous unless you're really good at using proxies to mask your IP. Once someone gets legal on your ass the website will provide information needed to identify you.

 

[BlueTex]

Why can't user created content also be held subject for review?

It certainly could be.. Would you be willing to pay a fee to be a member of DP? The legal liability of being sued regardless of whether your reviewers got it right would increase the cost of DP significantly. There would also be lag between the time you post and when your post would be viewable by anyone.

 

[snakestretcher]

You're not anonymous unless you're really good at using proxies to mask your IP. Once someone gets legal on your ass the website will provide information needed to identify you.

I like your sig line from Seneca. Seems most appropriate to apply it to your average conservative who is terrified of everything.

 

[Wolven_Hour]

You're not anonymous unless you're really good at using proxies to mask your IP. Once someone gets legal on your ass the website will provide information needed to identify you.

Nope, they are under no legal obligation to do so. They don't have to disclose who is writing defamatory information.
If you get legal on a website they'll just laugh it off because they know 230 protects them.

 

[Visbek]

Under section 230 internet publishers can post whatever defamatory information they want about anything and be completely shielded from any lawsuit.

No, that is NOT what Section 230 says or means. It says that the site is not liable for what its USERS post, and that the sites can regulate content if the site finds it "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

If the New York Times writes a defamatory article, they can be sued. If they write a non-defamatory article, and one of their user comments is defamatory, then the NYT cannot be sued -- but the user can.

Let me repeat that, because it's critical: USERS who post defamatory material on those sites can be sued.

If your local coffee shop has a bulletin board, and someone puts a defamatory flyer on it, should the coffee shop get sued? Of course not. They're not the one who defamed anyone.

As to the purpose? It's to allow people to build their own online communities, and let users speak their minds, without government interference. Debate Politics couldn't function without that protection. What a concept.

why shouldn't other publishers also be granted 230's protections?

Good grief. EVERYONE gets the same protection. News sites, book publishers, cable news -- they are not liable for what their USERS post.

The reason why a book publisher or media outlet can be held liable for material that they pay for, that they hired someone to do, that they know who produced it, that they are responsible for editing is because they are putting their imprimatur on it. They are saying "we are the gatekeepers, we checked this out, we did our due diligence."

In contrast, Reddit has very little information about its posters. It doesn't vet them, it doesn't fact check them, it doesn't tell them what to write, it certainly didn't hire them or pay them to post.

Let me put it this way. Imagine that Section 230 protections are removed, and sites are liable. I go onto Fox News using a VPN (to scramble my identity), and in the comments section I type up a ton of defamatory material. For whatever reason, Fox's moderators miss a bunch of it, and they get sued. Does that sound fair to you? And do you think Fox will take that risk? Or do you think they will moderate their comments more heavily?

Or: christianforums.com bans material that promotes homosexuality, same-sex marriage, premarital sex, drug use, and any non-Christian religion. None of that is "neutral." Do you want christianforums.com to lose its ability to regulate its users? I don't, even though I disagree with their moderation policy. It's their site, and their community, and they ought to decide for themselves what they find to be objectionable.

 

[Wolven_Hour]

It certainly could be.. Would you be willing to pay a fee to be a member of DP? The legal liability of being sued regardless of whether your reviewers got it right would increase the cost of DP significantly. There would also be lag between the time you post and when your post would be viewable by anyone.

Yes, those all seem like fair compromises because defamation ruins people's lives. It should never be protected.

 

[BlueTex]

You're not anonymous unless you're really good at using proxies to mask your IP. Once someone gets legal on your ass the website will provide information needed to identify you.

Larger sites have whole departments that handle nothing but subpoenas.

 

[BlueTex]

Yes, those all seem like fair compromises because defamation ruins people's lives. It should never be protected.

You can still sue a user who posts defamatory content. It’s done all the time.

 

[Wolven_Hour]

No, that is NOT what Section 230 says or means. It says that the site is not liable for what its USERS post, and that the sites can regulate content if the site finds it "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

If the New York Times writes a defamatory article, they can be sued. If they write a non-defamatory article, and one of their user comments is defamatory, then the NYT cannot be sued -- but the user can.

Let me repeat that, because it's critical: USERS who post defamatory material on those sites can be sued.

If your local coffee shop has a bulletin board, and someone puts a defamatory flyer on it, should the coffee shop get sued? Of course not. They're not the one who defamed anyone.

As to the purpose? It's to allow people to build their own online communities, and let users speak their minds, without government interference. Debate Politics couldn't function without that protection. What a concept.





Good grief. EVERYONE gets the same protection. News sites, book publishers, cable news -- they are not liable for what their USERS post.

The reason why a book publisher or media outlet can be held liable for material that they pay for, that they hired someone to do, that they know who produced it, that they are responsible for editing is because they are putting their imprimatur on it. They are saying "we are the gatekeepers, we checked this out, we did our due diligence."

In contrast, Reddit has very little information about its posters. It doesn't vet them, it doesn't fact check them, it doesn't tell them what to write, it certainly didn't hire them or pay them to post.

Let me put it this way. Imagine that Section 230 protections are removed, and sites are liable. I go onto Fox News using a VPN (to scramble my identity), and in the comments section I type up a ton of defamatory material. For whatever reason, Fox's moderators miss a bunch of it, and they get sued. Does that sound fair to you? And do you think Fox will take that risk? Or do you think they will moderate their comments more heavily?

Or: christianforums.com bans material that promotes homosexuality, same-sex marriage, premarital sex, drug use, and any non-Christian religion. None of that is "neutral." Do you want christianforums.com to lose its ability to regulate its users? I don't, even though I disagree with their moderation policy. It's their site, and their community, and they ought to decide for themselves what they find to be objectionable.

Why should online publishers be protected from publishing slanderous content then and not other publication mediums?
Why should victims of slander have no recourse against online LLCs that baselesslt accuse others of crimes like rape or pedophilia?

 

[Wolven_Hour]

You can still sue a user who posts defamatory content. It’s done all the time.

Not if you can't find them. You can be anonymous on the internet and publishers aren't obligated to post the source, they may not even know.

 

[Allan]

I like your sig line from Seneca. Seems most appropriate to apply it to your average conservative who is terrified of everything.

It's a good overall philosophy for everyone. As applicable here it boils down to:
1. Does what the government, (or Republicans or Democrats) do impact me directly at all?
- If it doesn't - don't worry about it.

- If it does can I do anything about it?
-- If yes then do it (for example vote, write letters, volunteer, protest).
-- If I can't do anything about it - don't worry about it, it's out of my control.

The other bit of this philosophy involves stress. "hey, you know what I haven't done today, looked for monsters under the bed". There are never monsters, but we're always looking for them in our futures. Stressed about things that might happen. We're experts at vividly imagining disaster scenarios. They never happen, or if they do we get beyond them just fine.

 

[Redress]

Under section 230 internet publishers can post whatever defamatory information they want about anything and be completely shielded from any lawsuit. People deny this is what 230 does but it's true, look it up. The only exception is for child pornography.
Even revenge porn websites are shielded by section 230.
Victims of defamation can still sue the people who create defamatory content but it is easy to be anonymous on the internet which has left victims powerless to take down defamatory, libelous information said about them online.

But I am not posting this to debate 230, rather I'd like to ask defenders of 230 why shouldn't other publishers also be granted 230's protections?

Newspapers, cable News, and book publishers can all be sued for publishing defamation yet online publications which is where 50 percent of Americans get their news get complete immunity.

What is the justification for this?

You are making a mistake. A book publisher for example chooses what content they publish. A TV or radio station chooses what shows they air. Social media does not choose what content they publish. They can(and should) moderate the content, but they do not choose which content to publish and which to not publish. Practical reality makes it impossible for social media platforms to catch all potential content that could result in litigation in real time. That is why they get section 230 protection. DP as an example, gets thousands of posts a day. There is simply no way the moderation staff could read and decide on all those posts, so we are going to miss stuff. Section 230 says that if we miss stuff, we are still not liable for it. I suspect without section 230, sites like DP would be forced to shut down.

 

[Redress]

Yes, those all seem like fair compromises because defamation ruins people's lives. It should never be protected.

Defamation is not protected. Content hosts are not liable for the defamations made by posters, the poster is.

 

[Allan]

Nope, they are under no legal obligation to do so. They don't have to disclose who is writing defamatory information.
If you get legal on a website they'll just laugh it off because they know 230 protects them.

230 doesn't protect them from warrants or subpoenas.

 

[Visbek]

Nope, they are under no legal obligation to do so. They don't have to disclose who is writing defamatory information.

Actually, sites can be forced to disclose the identity of a user, assuming they have the information.

Last year, Justin Bieber was granted a motion to force Twitter to reveal the name of someone he says defamed him:

Justin Bieber granted motion to subpoena Twitter in defamation lawsuit against accusers

Pop star Justin Bieber has been given permission to uncover the identities of the women who accused him of sexual assault

www.geo.tv

So, Bieber can't sue Twitter, but he can sue Twitter to compel it to reveal their identities (if they know it).

 

[Wolven_Hour]

230 doesn't protect them from warrants or subpoenas.

Yes it does, 230 grants complete immunity. Even if you do sue the person who created the content they still don't even have to take it down so people can be slandered for life.

Only exception is for child porn.

 

[Redress]

Why should online publishers be protected from publishing slanderous content then and not other publication mediums?
Why should victims of slander have no recourse against online LLCs that baselesslt accuse others of crimes like rape or pedophilia?

Other publication mediums choose what they publish. Online content hosts do not.
If DP posted an illegal defamation claim as the website, it would be liable. If one of our members does, they would be liable.

 

[Wolven_Hour]

Actually, sites can be forced to disclose the identity of a user, assuming they have the information.

Last year, Justin Bieber was granted a motion to force Twitter to reveal the name of someone he says defamed him:

Justin Bieber granted motion to subpoena Twitter in defamation lawsuit against accusers

Pop star Justin Bieber has been given permission to uncover the identities of the women who accused him of sexual assault

www.geo.tv

So, Bieber can't sue Twitter, but he can sue Twitter to compel it to reveal their identities (if they know it).

That is the problem, sometimes they do not have the info and even if you do track down the person who wrote it and sue them the publisher can still keep up the defamatory info forever with no recourse for the victim.

 

[Wolven_Hour]

Other publication mediums choose what they publish. Online content hosts do not.
If DP posted an illegal defamation claim as the website, it would be liable. If one of our members does, they would be liable.

They can, they just choose not to. Things can be held for review before publication.