NBC News is reporting that the California “revenge
porn” bill (website url SB255) is likely to attract attention in other states, with link here. Note
that the CA bill is an extension of an already existing law.
I was aware that people sometimes go after others on
Facebook or other well-known platforms.
People have been damaged, of course;
and major providers like Facebook and YouTube will remove materials a
TOS violations despite technical Section 230 protection. Typically, most discussion forum moderators
will remove personal attacks also, and generally can do so without being viewed
as “editing” and weakening Section 230 immunity.
Another issue, according to the NBC story, is the
presence of “revenge” sites like “Is Anyone Up?”. Anderson Cooper had looked at this sort of
problem with the discussion of an “STD Carriers” website as I discussed here
March 12, 2012.
One can connect the dots and suppose that a state
criminalizes a service provider who knowingly abets “revenge libel” – to shut
down sites specifically set up for revenge, cyberbullying, to disclose private
medical information, to traffic in underage prostitutes, to sell illegal drugs,
and a variety of other normally objectionable purposes. State attorneys general will say that they
need the Section 230 “exception” (to allow prosecution of service providers
under state criminal codes) to enforce these.
It will provoke a troubling argument, as to whether there is a slippery
slope or chilling effect.
It certainly sounds as though the self-distribution
of free speech on the Web is put in jeopardy if there is an overriding public
purpose in protecting the vulnerable from the worst actions of the few, when “free
speech” of many doesn’t seem to carry compelling standard unless there is “responsibility
for others” to go with the speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment