Electronic Frontier Foundation, as part of its “2013
in Review” series, offers an editorial perspective on attempts to chip away at
or even eliminate Section 230 protections of Internet service providers and
publishing platforms from downstream liability for what users post, without
pre-screening which would be impossible, The piece, by Adi Kamdar, is here.
The author discusses, foremost, the request by state
attorneys-general to remove Section 230 protections from cases involving state
laws. There is a Section 230 provision
for federal criminal law, especially child pornography, but liability exists
only if the ISP actually knows that a legal violation has happened. It does not have to pro-actively screen
(although the possibility of screening for digital watermarks for known illegal
images would sound feasible). However,
state laws, particularly in Washington and New Jersey, were so loosely worded
as to leave places like Internet cafes or Starbucks open to criminal liability
for what users did.
The article also discusses the case involving “The
Dirty”, a gossip site, covered here Nov. 21, 2013.
Some policy makers, at the state level, sound
oblivious to the significance of the downstream liability protection, or don’t
see user-generated conduct as connected to fundamental free speech rights when
balanced against “collective” harm to the community (especially minors and
especially women) because of the actions of some bad actors. Everyone’s speech rights should be connected
to having or sharing actual responsibility for others, they say.
No comments:
Post a Comment