Comments on: Section 230: The Cornerstone of Internet Freedom http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 27 May 2012 20:03:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Why SOPA Threatens the DMCA Safe Harbor http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-74818 Why SOPA Threatens the DMCA Safe Harbor Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:10:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-74818 <p>[...] of utopias,” as my colleagues have explained time and time again on these pages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The unintended consequences of overbroad, carelessly drafted legislation in this space [...]</p> [...] of utopias,” as my colleagues have explained time and time again on these pages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The unintended consequences of overbroad, carelessly drafted legislation in this space [...]

]]> By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-67695 The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:43:54 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-67695 <p><strong>Eric Goldman on New Threats to Sec. 230...</strong></p> <p>By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka Short but very important essay here from Santa Clara University Law School Prof. Eric Goldman about calls to alter Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to address concerns about online harassment. Generally...</p> Eric Goldman on New Threats to Sec. 230…

By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka Short but very important essay here from Santa Clara University Law School Prof. Eric Goldman about calls to alter Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to address concerns about online harassment. Generally…

]]> By: Eric Goldman on New Threats to Sec. 230 http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-67694 Eric Goldman on New Threats to Sec. 230 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:57:44 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-67694 <p>[...] we’ve noted here before, it is probably not an overstatement to think of Sec. 230 as the very cornerstone of Internet Freedom, since it makes possible an online “utopia for utopias,” to borrow a phrase from our [...]</p> [...] we’ve noted here before, it is probably not an overstatement to think of Sec. 230 as the very cornerstone of Internet Freedom, since it makes possible an online “utopia for utopias,” to borrow a phrase from our [...]

]]> By: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-61013 The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:07:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-61013 <p><strong>Guidelines & Best Practices for Anonymous Blogging (Pt.2)...</strong></p> <p>In a post earlier this week, I discussed Randy Cohen's "guideline" for anonymous blogging. Specifically, Cohen argued in a recent New York Times piece that, "The effects of anonymous posting have become so baleful that it should be forsworn unless....</p> Guidelines & Best Practices for Anonymous Blogging (Pt.2)…

In a post earlier this week, I discussed Randy Cohen’s “guideline” for anonymous blogging. Specifically, Cohen argued in a recent New York Times piece that, “The effects of anonymous posting have become so baleful that it should be forsworn unless….

]]> By: Guidelines & Best Practices for Anonymous Blogging (Pt.2) http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-61007 Guidelines & Best Practices for Anonymous Blogging (Pt.2) Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:34:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-61007 <p>[...] sites who host speech, things get trickier.  Luckily, we have Section 230 of the CDA to protect online operators from onerous forms of liability for the content they host on their sites, although some would like [...]</p> [...] sites who host speech, things get trickier.  Luckily, we have Section 230 of the CDA to protect online operators from onerous forms of liability for the content they host on their sites, although some would like [...]

]]> By: Sec. 230 is Required by Justice http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60796 Sec. 230 is Required by Justice Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:49:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60796 <p>[...] Sec. 230 has been a hot topic around here recently, I figured this would be a good time to fire up some controversy and [...]</p> [...] Sec. 230 has been a hot topic around here recently, I figured this would be a good time to fire up some controversy and [...]

]]> By: Kevin Donovan http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-65422 Kevin Donovan Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:23:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-65422 <p>Perhaps my lack of legal training is leading me to miss something, but I <i>do</i> see an "act of Congress" as one form of "government mandate." As long as the government maintains the legal monopoly on the use of force, a Congressional Act is a government mandate.</p> Perhaps my lack of legal training is leading me to miss something, but I do see an “act of Congress” as one form of “government mandate.” As long as the government maintains the legal monopoly on the use of force, a Congressional Act is a government mandate.

]]> By: AlexHarris http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-65421 AlexHarris Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:04:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-65421 <p>Tomorrow, Congress passes a new law: If you are offended by the clothing of anyone you see, you can sue them. If you prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were subjectively offended - a threshold the statute indicates can be met with a sworn affidavit - you get $10,000 in damages from them and they get one year of jail.<br><br>The day after tomorrow, Congress passes another law, repealing that one: No longer can you sue over offensive clothing.<br><br>Is the second law a "government mandate"? Not if that term is to have any meaning separate from "act of Congress."</p> Tomorrow, Congress passes a new law: If you are offended by the clothing of anyone you see, you can sue them. If you prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were subjectively offended – a threshold the statute indicates can be met with a sworn affidavit – you get $10,000 in damages from them and they get one year of jail.

The day after tomorrow, Congress passes another law, repealing that one: No longer can you sue over offensive clothing.

Is the second law a “government mandate”? Not if that term is to have any meaning separate from “act of Congress.”

]]> By: Kevin Donovan http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-62154 Kevin Donovan Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:23:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-62154 <p>Perhaps my lack of legal training is leading me to miss something, but I <i>do</i> see an "act of Congress" as one form of "government mandate." As long as the government maintains the legal monopoly on the use of force, a Congressional Act is a government mandate.</p> Perhaps my lack of legal training is leading me to miss something, but I do see an “act of Congress” as one form of “government mandate.” As long as the government maintains the legal monopoly on the use of force, a Congressional Act is a government mandate.

]]> By: Kevin D http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60758 Kevin D Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:23:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60758 <p>Perhaps my lack of legal training is leading me to miss something, but I <i>do</i> see an "act of Congress" as one form of "government mandate." As long as the government maintains the legal monopoly on the use of force, a Congressional Act is a government mandate.</p> Perhaps my lack of legal training is leading me to miss something, but I do see an “act of Congress” as one form of “government mandate.” As long as the government maintains the legal monopoly on the use of force, a Congressional Act is a government mandate.

]]> By: AlexHarris http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60753 AlexHarris Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:04:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60753 <p>Tomorrow, Congress passes a new law: If you are offended by the clothing of anyone you see, you can sue them. If you prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were subjectively offended - a threshold the statute indicates can be met with a sworn affidavit - you get $10,000 in damages from them and they get one year of jail.<br><br>The day after tomorrow, Congress passes another law, repealing that one: No longer can you sue over offensive clothing.<br><br>Is the second law a "government mandate"? Not if that word is to have any meaning separate from "act of Congress." And it probably should.</p> Tomorrow, Congress passes a new law: If you are offended by the clothing of anyone you see, you can sue them. If you prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were subjectively offended – a threshold the statute indicates can be met with a sworn affidavit – you get $10,000 in damages from them and they get one year of jail.

The day after tomorrow, Congress passes another law, repealing that one: No longer can you sue over offensive clothing.

Is the second law a “government mandate”? Not if that word is to have any meaning separate from “act of Congress.” And it probably should.

]]> By: MikeRT http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60734 MikeRT Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:14:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60734 <p>In the 19th century, we got the Midwest. Today, we have Digg and 4chan. I'm having a hard time seeing the progress here...</p> In the 19th century, we got the Midwest. Today, we have Digg and 4chan. I'm having a hard time seeing the progress here…

]]> By: Kevin D http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60724 Kevin D Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:30:33 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60724 <p>@Berin & Adam - I stand by Sec. 230 being a government mandate, as understood as an official commission or order. A mandate is not defined by bureaucratic meddling. It is defined by the ability to compel action (or, in this case, inaction). The would-be plaintiffs in cases thrown out due to Sec. 230 most certainly feel like they were mandated to do something: not sue!<br><br>But, really, that's just semantics. <br><br>On your extended point, Adam, I'm in full agreement. I, too, am fearful of the unintended consequences of NN laws. While I think there is a strong case against NN laws, my more general point was that properly structured legislation for the 'net can be written, and too often I feel like that is missing in the "regulation must equal bad" discussions (on an otherwise thoughtful blog). <br><br>Perhaps the task, then, is to think of ways in which the 'net can be made even more robust than Tim points out in his paper on the topic. I'm not nearly clever enough to do so, though... : )</p> @Berin & Adam – I stand by Sec. 230 being a government mandate, as understood as an official commission or order. A mandate is not defined by bureaucratic meddling. It is defined by the ability to compel action (or, in this case, inaction). The would-be plaintiffs in cases thrown out due to Sec. 230 most certainly feel like they were mandated to do something: not sue!

But, really, that's just semantics.

On your extended point, Adam, I'm in full agreement. I, too, am fearful of the unintended consequences of NN laws. While I think there is a strong case against NN laws, my more general point was that properly structured legislation for the 'net can be written, and too often I feel like that is missing in the “regulation must equal bad” discussions (on an otherwise thoughtful blog).

Perhaps the task, then, is to think of ways in which the 'net can be made even more robust than Tim points out in his paper on the topic. I'm not nearly clever enough to do so, though… : )

]]> By: Berin Szoka http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60720 Berin Szoka Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:37:53 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60720 <p>Section 230 is <i>not</i> a government mandate. It's essentially "Tort Reform for the Internet"—getting the government (i.e., the courts) out of the way by setting the default for online interactions to "no tort liability for the intermediary." Of course, parties can contract around that but setting a default that allows for maximum creativity and innovation <i>by removing government as an obstacle</i> has been critical for the flourishing of the Internet.</p> Section 230 is not a government mandate. It's essentially “Tort Reform for the Internet”—getting the government (i.e., the courts) out of the way by setting the default for online interactions to “no tort liability for the intermediary.” Of course, parties can contract around that but setting a default that allows for maximum creativity and innovation by removing government as an obstacle has been critical for the flourishing of the Internet.

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60718 Adam Thierer Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:09:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60718 <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act" rel="nofollow">Section 230</a> is the sometimes-forgotten portion of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act" rel="nofollow">the Communications Decency Act of 1996</a> that shielded Internet Service Providers (ISP) from liability for information posted or published on their systems by users or other third parties. It was enshrined into law with the passage of the historic Telecommunications Act of 1996. Importantly, even though the provisions of the CDA seeking to regulate “indecent” speech on the Internet were struck down as unconstitutional, Sec. 230 was left untouched.</p> Section 230 is the sometimes-forgotten portion of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that shielded Internet Service Providers (ISP) from liability for information posted or published on their systems by users or other third parties. It was enshrined into law with the passage of the historic Telecommunications Act of 1996. Importantly, even though the provisions of the CDA seeking to regulate “indecent” speech on the Internet were struck down as unconstitutional, Sec. 230 was left untouched.

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60717 Adam Thierer Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:07:16 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60717 <p>Kevin, thanks for your comment. Perhaps I can explain why we see these two things so differently.<br><br>Sec. 230 curtails government coercion by limiting the potential punishing legal liability that would flow from an open-ended assignment of liability to Internet intermediaries for problems not of their making. Libertarians generally oppose the idea of “deputizing the middleman” or blaming intermediaries for problems created by others. Moreover, Sec. 230 is not a “mandate” that requires the assertion of raw government coercion or that would allow bureaucrats to reorder or micromanage online markets.<br><br>Net neutrality regulation, by contrast, is a true regulatory mandate, and it would most definitely <a href="http://techliberation.com/2008/11/12/tim-lee-on-net-neut-the-durable-internet/" rel="nofollow">allow bureaucrats to meddle with online markets</a>. By its very nature it requires that regulators oversee private network management decisions, which opens the door to destructive command-and-control infrastructure regulation, massive <a href="http://techliberation.com/2007/01/30/lawyers-lawsuits-and-net-neutrality-regulation/" rel="nofollow">bureaucratic waste, regulatory agency growth, and corporate rent-seeking</a>, and even <a href="http://techliberation.com/2009/06/17/the-unfree-press-call-for-internet-price-controls-the-broadband-internet-fairness-act/" rel="nofollow">price controls, as we see now</a>. Moreover, such economic regulation typically <a href="http://techliberation.com/2006/05/23/hillary-clinton-net-neutrality-regulation-the-great-leap-of-faith/" rel="nofollow">opens the door to content regulation</a>. Again, Sec. 230 does NONE of these things.<br><br>So, even if we might agree on <em>the general principle</em> behind network neutrality, we would not want it mandated by law for those reasons. It just has too many potential downsides and could be quite destructive in practice. Sec. 230, on the other hand, fosters a vibrant online environment for both speech and commerce without such regulatory baggage.</p> Kevin, thanks for your comment. Perhaps I can explain why we see these two things so differently.

Sec. 230 curtails government coercion by limiting the potential punishing legal liability that would flow from an open-ended assignment of liability to Internet intermediaries for problems not of their making. Libertarians generally oppose the idea of “deputizing the middleman” or blaming intermediaries for problems created by others. Moreover, Sec. 230 is not a “mandate” that requires the assertion of raw government coercion or that would allow bureaucrats to reorder or micromanage online markets.

Net neutrality regulation, by contrast, is a true regulatory mandate, and it would most definitely allow bureaucrats to meddle with online markets. By its very nature it requires that regulators oversee private network management decisions, which opens the door to destructive command-and-control infrastructure regulation, massive bureaucratic waste, regulatory agency growth, and corporate rent-seeking, and even price controls, as we see now. Moreover, such economic regulation typically opens the door to content regulation. Again, Sec. 230 does NONE of these things.

So, even if we might agree on the general principle behind network neutrality, we would not want it mandated by law for those reasons. It just has too many potential downsides and could be quite destructive in practice. Sec. 230, on the other hand, fosters a vibrant online environment for both speech and commerce without such regulatory baggage.

]]> By: Kevin D http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60710 Kevin D Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:10:59 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60710 <p>As much as I have libertarian tendencies, I don't understand why you guys rail against speculative net neutrality laws, but are happy to support this law. <br><br>I have libertarian tendencies because I want to expand liberty - whether through lack of government involvement or through well-structured government involvement. Obviously government, for a variety of reasons you know well, often runs the risk of stepping on the toes of liberty; but if Section 230 shows anything, it is that government mandates can support liberty, as well.</p> As much as I have libertarian tendencies, I don't understand why you guys rail against speculative net neutrality laws, but are happy to support this law.

I have libertarian tendencies because I want to expand liberty – whether through lack of government involvement or through well-structured government involvement. Obviously government, for a variety of reasons you know well, often runs the risk of stepping on the toes of liberty; but if Section 230 shows anything, it is that government mandates can support liberty, as well.

]]> By: Mark Plimpton http://techliberation.com/2009/08/18/section-230-the-cornerstone-of-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-60708 Mark Plimpton Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:34:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=20476#comment-60708 <p>Section 230 of what?</p> Section 230 of what?

]]>