States Attorneys General Want Special Exception To Blame Sites For Actions Of Users
from the that-would-be-a-very-bad-idea dept
One of the most important laws that has enabled innovation on the internet to thrive is Section 230 of the CDA. We've written about it many times. What it says is fairly basic: a website cannot be held liable for actions by its users. There are a few exceptions and caveats, but that's the basic premise. And it makes perfect common sense -- so much so that it's almost amazing that you need a law to say it. But, we do, because when grandstanding and moral panics come around, politicians and people with pitchforks love to blame third parties and intermediaries as if they're the problem. And, having intermediaries be liable for how users are using their services creates all sorts of problems. It makes it that much more difficult for companies to innovate, because they're taking on tremendous potential liability if anyone misuses their service. So, they then either don't develop an open service, or they have to invest heavily in services to filter/monitor/block any potential misdeeds (which also will lead to blocking legitimate uses as well).Of course, the grandstanding politicians who jump on moral panics absolutely hate Section 230. They always have. As we've discussed in detail over the years, the type of politician that focuses on grandstanding on moral panics the most is always a state attorney general. They make grand public pronouncements against companies they don't like, often with absolutely no legal basis, and then browbeat them into a "settlement" just so the companies can stop having to deal with the AGs lying about them in public all the time. Chris Tolles, the CEO of Topix, gave a great detailed explanation of how various AGs ganged up on him, basically issuing a press release accusing him of doing horrible things, totally misrepresenting what the company did, but without naming a single law they violated (because they hadn't). In response, Tolles did what most people would think you should do in that case: explain to the AGs what Topix actually did, and why it was perfectly reasonable. In response, the AGs (more of them this time) issued another press release, taking direct statements that Tolles had told them further out of context, and making the company sound even worse. Eventually he "settled" because fighting them was costly.
We've seen this over and over and over again. AGs have attacked Twitter and Craigslist and Facebook and Comcast and Google and over and over again.
Of course, the lack of a legal basis often stymies these attempts, and a big thing that gets in the way: Section 230. So it should come as little surprise, as noted by Eric Goldman today, that the states Attorneys General are planning to ask Congress for an exemption to Section 230 when (you guessed it) states AGs bring a case. He heard it today while on a panel at the annual meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General, where he was on a panel about Section 230. During the discussion, Goldman says that an unnamed Attorney General (he didn't catch which one) made a comment about the plan.
Section 230 has been under attack for some time, but going to Congress to try to make that kind of exception would be a huge disaster. It would allow these AGs to continue with bogus grandstanding campaigns, but actually with the ability to create massive problems for companies actually trying to offer usable, open platforms for users. Nearly every company would need to proactively filter any kind of user generated content, and would be at risk of tremendous legal liability if "bad stuff" got through. This would be a huge attack on internet innovation, all so some ambitious politicians can try to make more headlines by attacking tech companies. The state Attorney General position is considered the classic "stepping stone" position, which many politicians use to run for Governor or Senator in their state, and one way to help with the campaign is to get lots of headlines around "protecting the children" and whatnot. So, basically, these politicians would be breaking one of the key elements that has allowed internet innovation to thrive, to help them get a few more headlines in their quest for higher office.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attorneys general, cda, innovation, secondary liability, section 230, state attorneys general, third party innovation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Work those sockpuppets while trying to save face, but whatever you do, don't address the merits of anything I say.
Attack the person! It's the only thing you know!
Good on ya!
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am going to keep posting this every time you roll out your bullshit lies.
Also, you have proven you deserve to be censored. If Mike found a way to block you off the entire site, many here would not shed a tear OR feel that is was in any way wrong for him to do so, simply because you only come here to be a disruption and are an attention whore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Very little you have to say at the moment has any merit. You have quite literally lowered yourself to the level of spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, bud. If you want to talk about complete breakdowns…
This is nowhere near a complete breakdown. I doubt AJ's got the s|<i1z to go HipCrime on us all, but push him hard enough and he might get close to “Terri Tickle”.
Wikipedia: Usenet celebrity: Eccentric personalities
There are some real strange people out there. Wait 'til AJ gets his own FAQ before you start talkin' breakdown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This! http://v.gd/3K4FAn
So scared of the truth! It's totally awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guess this proves that you cheat on all of your exams.
Go on, run away to another post and hide.
LOSER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets play a game.
ArmoredGuineaPIg: Who is there?
AJ: It's me!
ArmoredGuineaPIg: Me who?
AJ: Me AJ.
ArmoredGuineaPIg: Oh hi AJ, how are you?
AJ: Fine.
ArmoredGuineaPIg: How is the wife?
AJ: AJ starts crying.
ArmoredGuineaPIg: She left you? why? what happened?
AJ: MM happened.
ArmoredGuineaPIg: Who is MM?
AJ: Mike Masnick.
ArmoredGuineaPIg: Did this MM run away with your wife?
AJ: No, she is to good for him, she would never socialize with the likes of him.
ArmoredGuineaPIg: Then what does he has to do with your wife living you?
AJ: She left me because I spend to much time trying to expose MM.
ArmoredGuineaPIg: What did he do?
AJ: Nothing he just won't talk to me and I want answers from him, I want the world to know that he is a fraud and I am right.
ArmoredGuineaPIg: AJ, calm down, do you want some milk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Has it angered doctors? Is it a facelift secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that you just out and out dismiss any counter arguments does not make you 'right.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to redefine the lengths and eliminate the distortions of "for limited Times".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also would like an exception to go after every company that aided and abetted those people.
This is why we can't have nice things, all the rules are upside down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Idea Obviously NOT Thought Through
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo in headline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike and Tolles against AG investigating Google for antitrust.
Tolles dropped something he calls the "priority review program", which sounds like paid shilling. But he doesn't admit anything could be wrong with it. And Mike as usual claims it didn't gain much money. -- That's one of Mike's standard defenses: unless you're really raking it in (much more than millionaire Kim Dotcom, manifestly), then obviously all is perfectly legal.
Anyhoo, when more than one AG comes after you, it's just possible that you're engaged in fairly obvious fiddling. So I don't at all believe Mike and his pal Tolles there.
Nor here. Mike has the view that statute is a shield, that it legalizes what's against common law, where I see statute as ALWAYS suspect, an instrument made by criminals for criminals, and usually against the public good. Mike doesn't do common law or morality: he's railing here against "moral panics", one of his standard phrases.
And Mike is always looking for ways that obvious criminality can be shielded or excused. Thus, his position that "safe harbor" protects file hosts with obvious infringed content on their site, and from which they gain money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that for a 3 second thought. Of course when you're paid for rooting out piracy and securing eternity it takes a little longer to gain insight through retrospect, I guess. Must be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike and Tolles against AG investigating Google for antitrust.
Nice appeal to authority there. Obviously there's no reason to believe that if one AG seeks to improve their chances of career advancement by grandstanding on a stupid issue like this, that others would jump on the bandwagon for the same ulterior motives. No, AG's clearly have moral superiority when in numbers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh wait, that would be a scary proportion of your population.
Although now I think about it, 'crazed loonies' is a good description of your gun lobby. 'Wayne "Crazed Loony" LaPierre' has a nice ring to it. Or 'Charlton "Prise my gun out of my crazed loony dead hands" Heston'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oooh, SCARY TITLE and AGENDA!
Who Are We Keeping Safe With The Communications Decency Act's Safe Harbor?
Reputation-harming websites like Mugshots.com, Is Anybody Down, and others allow users to upload damaging images of and speech about consumers. This panel will discuss the need to change who is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and under what circumstances.
AND a WHOLE hour scheduled! WITH this Goldman a panelist to presumably oppose their evil agenda! Man, this is a scandal!
Now, that Mike gives it play means that he's worried that anything resembling common decency will hamper him or his pals. He might be forced to step in when his fanboys act up. But all Mike has is some made-up vague hyperbole: "a huge attack on internet innovation".
Surely we can all agree that comments at times go too far and that some are edging past decency. It's just time to re-consider whether the sweeping provisions of Section 230 go too far the other way and allow harm. That's all these AGs are doing, but Mike is strangely alarmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oooh, SCARY TITLE and AGENDA!
Surely we can all agree that comments at times go too far and that some are edging past decency
I think that most will agree that your comments go way past decency. Your comments are always filled with lies, more lies and ad-hominems
You are the most immoral person who comments on this site.
You are only happy when your corporate pay masters are stealing rights away from the public.
You seem to believbe that anything that your masters do is moral and we are immoral for discussing the antics that they pull
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can not tell me there is a long list of things they should be taking care of in their states, but instead pursue headlines well outside of the scope of their office.
I mean if the public is paying for you to do your job and your wasting dollars making up problems while ignoring real issues... aren't you unfit for the job?
Oooh maybe we can get the DoJ to investigate the AG's for violating the law instead of trying to strip away more rights from citizens for a fucking soundbite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A stepping stone to a congressional seat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Realize that makes any web site subject to all country and state laws anywhere in the world and you will begin to understand the idiocy of US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.opennicproject.org/
Here is the EFF guide to the free universe.
http://prism-break.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How many people will bother with VPN?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pick your poison mate.
There are several options to circumvent even governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think it is seriously getting close to the need for a violent uprising by the people, lets do like France did and chop of their heads for their corrupt ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All magazine publishers that allow depictions of scantilly clad women should be sent to Indonesia for sentencing?
All of the Hollywood producers/screenwriters that disrespect the Thai Monarchy should be sent to Thailand for violation of Thailand's lese majeste law?
Now can you see how stupid your comment was..
Was about to post this when my sarcasm meter started working again. I just had to bash my head against the desk enough times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the above is such common sense then why does it not apply to the manufacturers and retailers of firearms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would be the asshat ag from NY, every NY ag is an asshat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bout time
death to facebook!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bout time
Hope you're not posting from Methuen—or anywhere in Massachusetts.
( Look out kid / Don't matter what you did )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bout time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bout time
"Given all the suicides, bashings, bullying ,and yes, even murders _directly attributed_ to telephones, I think its high time those gutless cowardly bastards were held accountable for their part.
death to AT&T/Verizon!"
Now makes as much sense - but there would be more people agreeing with you ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's hoping it's working, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These morons need to think before they speak... If the site owners were held responsible for what the users did there would be mass trolling. Don't like someone? Go to their site post some illegal content like movies, music, warez, or even worse.
It's pretty much impossible to police the web.. These dinosaurs that are not in touch with the age of technology should have no right to "fix" what they don't understand. They're just gonna end up making shit worse for everybody including themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're All Crooks!
- with apologies to Mark Twain -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://tr.im/44w44
Why is mike such a hardcore censor? I thought he hated censors??
Hmm..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd be very surprised if one popped up one day with a well-reasoned argument for his or her position. Hell, I might even pay attention to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can bet that Mike will be working extra hard to censor it.
why is he so scared of criticism? why is he working so hard to censor me??
You decide.
stay tuned!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless you're Mike's alt meant to drum up activity, in which case... joke's old man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First amendment
Funny. That argument didn't seem very compelling during the SOPA debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First amendment
And SOPA was a bill concerning “moderation of online comments”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two can play the same game...
It would hurt the attorney general more if a full page add was taken out claiming that the attorney general was corrupted into attacking a site than any advertisement against a business, especially if a few sites owners had to get together and attack them.
Who is going to believe the AG when it is shown over and over again that they accept legal bribes and monies for themselves to use on whatever they want, where they receive paid holidays all the time to do attacks on others or to help pass laws. Seriously i don't think websites have any problem as long as they attack the AG where it hurts, in the press , with attacking their moral conduct in public , just as the AG has done and made acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
Carried to is extreme, it would result in hosting providers moderating everything posted to sites that use their services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AGs want this legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Section 230 should never have been passed, and anyone who dismisses the pain of those whose reputations have been ruined by it can thank thejmselves for the inevitable overreaction that is about to come from Washington.
SOPA isn't far behind. The intern et is finally growing up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why? Were we the ones who acted irresponsibly? Were we foolish enough to do something in front of witness' that we didn't want anyone to see? It isn't my fault people were brought up to believe they can do anything and have no consequences.
And no I don't agree with those sites, but I don't need techdirt shutdown because less than average joe posts a link to a movie or a torrent site. So, "John Smith," go fuck yourself and if you wish to keep it private, then keep it private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People's lives matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]