It's a law that basically just says if someone says something online that could be deemed illegal, you are not allowed to punish the site they posted their speech on or anyone else who wasn't directly involved in actually making the statement. You have to punish the person that broke the law.
The problem with the example you give is actually really simple: Section 230 DOES protect Facebook from the charges cited in that article. The problem is that they chose not to go to court to defend themselves. Instead they gave in and settled the case out of court.
This case really isn't any different. The problem is your assumption about what the law does and does not allow for that case. Facebook choosing not to go to court doesn't change the fact that the law offered to protect them from such ridiculous charges.
This is where it becomes important to recognize that the fact that you don't like the company that this ruling is affecting is not an ok reason to decide that the ruling is ok.
If we do that we allow the damage the ruling or law does to affect us all going forward. We have to recognize that Section 230 should be able to protect even those we don't like.
No it isn't. They didn't republish it. They pointed to the spot someone else published it. If you can't be honest with what's actually happening nothing you have to say about it is worth listening to.
Not in cases of libel
Libel is not something contained anywhere in the Constitution. That document does in fact place the value of expression above any harm that might come from it. Libel is a stupid concept created by people who aren't willing to deal with having their feelings hurt. It's dumb and has no place in a civilized society or anywhere else quite frankly.
Section 230 only follows the rules set forth in our Constitution.
Actually it does not. It creates an exception to 170 years of libel law
Actually, it does. The libel laws you're referencing are what violate the rules set out in the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on the fact that the freedom to speak is VASTLY more important than any harm that might come from that speech.
This point isn't even addressing the issue Section 230 addresses, though. Section 230 doesn't say libel is ok. All it says is you have to punish the person who ACTUALLY SAID THE THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE. Anyone else pointing out what someone else said is never wrong and is not adding to the harm. It's just part of the harm caused by the original hurtful statements. The only possible excuse for going after the platform is greed since they are far more likely to actually have money than the speaker is. That is not something that should ever be allowed in the law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: API is interface, not implementation
This is similar to how a phone book gets copyright protection
Ok, seriously. Go look things up before you just spout off with your assumptions. Phone books DON'T get copyright protection for the very reasons he listed. If this is where your understanding of copyright is you need to go reeducate yourself about it.
Re: Re: Re: No, if MM understood what API is, he'd support copyr
Another comment completely ignoring the point of the question or the realities of what copyright does and does not allow.
Perhaps it would help if you tried to answer why it is legally recognized that a recipe is not legally copyrightable? Maybe having to learn about that will help you learn why copyright isn't allowed to apply to everything anyone can create.
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, if MM understood what API is, he'd support c
Literally explained in this article why that is completely false. There are lots of things that are completely uncopyrightable and examples have already been given both in the article and in the comments. Like it or not some text content IS more worth of protection than some other pieces.
Section 230 doesn't do anything to anyone's ability to speak or not. It doesn't change anything about what's legal to do or not. It literally just forces you to go after the person who actually committed the act you think is wrong and not some third party just because they're easier to target.
Why exactly is it ok in your mind to punish someone other than the person who committed the wrong?
Except that those differences are nothing any driver should not already be accustomed to handling. If you can't handle talking to someone on your phone then you can't handle talking to someone in your car.
The fact is drivers have to handle potentially distracting things all the time. This fact does not make it sensible to make handling those distractions illegal.
So it's never of any value whatsoever to see proof of someone committing a terrible act. That's an incredibly stupid and narrow minded view of anything, but especially of speech (which video of something most definitely is).
The fact that you don't agree with seeing it does not magically make the value others see in having it visible wrong. In fact you haven't even bothered to explain why you think it's wrong for it to be there. You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that everyone should "obviously" agree with you.
Re: You're saying "Nerd Harder" can make the bad idea work.
So you've based your entire argument on 3 premises that are easily proven false by this very article, much less all the wealth of speech Masnick has made on this site. There's literally no point in even trying to talk with you about any conclusion you've made based on those.
It's important to recognize the this problem is not just with the government. Far too many people believe that any abuse is just fine as long as the police are the abusers. Until most of the populace accepts and agrees that even those who may have committed a crime should be given basic rights and protections against excessive abuse the government will continue to be free to do whatever it wants.
OF COURSE I would rather they just sue me. Because then THEY HAVE TO PROVE I DID SOMETHING WRONG. Then I get my rights before a court of law. Then due process actually exists.
None of these things happens when they are allowed to just say I did something wrong without a shred of proof or even evidence provided. In fact the whole problem with the DMCA is that the legal system isn't involved anywhere at all.
The problem with what you're saying is that you're being either dishonest or ignorant.
Search engines already block linking to sites known to exist for no other purpose than illegal piracy. And what on earth do you even mean by "register and pay tax"? That doesn't make any sense at all. If they don't register they don't get a domain name. Perhaps you could provide an example of a site you think is a "pirate site"? I'm willing to bet it will end up being a perfectly legitimate site that just has some users that have used it for piracy. That's not a pirate site. Blaming it for the acts of users on it that it didn't actively encourage is the same as blaming the mayor for any crime committed in the city they're over.
It's kind of you to approach this so nicely, but your entire sentiment is unfortunately complete nonsense.
The target of this is not and never was piracy. If it were, it would target the pirates. Not the seas everyone sails on. This response to the pathetically tiny problem of piracy is stupid and insanely overblown.
I'd bet the fact that there are other places that have no guns and are therefore far far easier targets is a far more likely explanation for why this doesn't happen in places like courthouses than the fact that they have metal detectors.
No, they shouldn't. But then the world doesn't care a crap about what should or shouldn't be. You can either accept that you need to know how to defend yourself against someone with a gun or you can take the chance that you won't be the one they shoot. Pretending there's a third option is just living in denial.
Someday people will stop being so dang selfish throwing around these stupid assumptions and care about what's actually going on in places that have done the things you scream we're all too stupid to do.
On the post: It's One Thing For Trolls And Grandstanding Politicians To Get CDA 230 Wrong, But The Press Shouldn't Help Them
Re: ...Section 230...
It's a law that basically just says if someone says something online that could be deemed illegal, you are not allowed to punish the site they posted their speech on or anyone else who wasn't directly involved in actually making the statement. You have to punish the person that broke the law.
On the post: The Ninth Circuit Broke The Internet. So We Asked Them To Unbreak It.
Re: Housing Discrimination?
The problem with the example you give is actually really simple: Section 230 DOES protect Facebook from the charges cited in that article. The problem is that they chose not to go to court to defend themselves. Instead they gave in and settled the case out of court.
This case really isn't any different. The problem is your assumption about what the law does and does not allow for that case. Facebook choosing not to go to court doesn't change the fact that the law offered to protect them from such ridiculous charges.
On the post: The Ninth Circuit Broke The Internet. So We Asked Them To Unbreak It.
Re: Section 230 & the companies that rely on it
This is where it becomes important to recognize that the fact that you don't like the company that this ruling is affecting is not an ok reason to decide that the ruling is ok.
If we do that we allow the damage the ruling or law does to affect us all going forward. We have to recognize that Section 230 should be able to protect even those we don't like.
On the post: The Ninth Circuit Broke The Internet. So We Asked Them To Unbreak It.
Re: Re: Re:
The US is out of step with the rest of the world
That doesn't make us wrong or them right.
That's called republication
No it isn't. They didn't republish it. They pointed to the spot someone else published it. If you can't be honest with what's actually happening nothing you have to say about it is worth listening to.
Not in cases of libel
Libel is not something contained anywhere in the Constitution. That document does in fact place the value of expression above any harm that might come from it. Libel is a stupid concept created by people who aren't willing to deal with having their feelings hurt. It's dumb and has no place in a civilized society or anywhere else quite frankly.
Section 230 only follows the rules set forth in our Constitution.
Actually it does not. It creates an exception to 170 years of libel law
Actually, it does. The libel laws you're referencing are what violate the rules set out in the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on the fact that the freedom to speak is VASTLY more important than any harm that might come from that speech.
This point isn't even addressing the issue Section 230 addresses, though. Section 230 doesn't say libel is ok. All it says is you have to punish the person who ACTUALLY SAID THE THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE. Anyone else pointing out what someone else said is never wrong and is not adding to the harm. It's just part of the harm caused by the original hurtful statements. The only possible excuse for going after the platform is greed since they are far more likely to actually have money than the speaker is. That is not something that should ever be allowed in the law.
On the post: Supreme Court Asks White House To Weigh In On Copyrightability Of APIs
Re: Re: Re: Re: API is interface, not implementation
This is similar to how a phone book gets copyright protection
Ok, seriously. Go look things up before you just spout off with your assumptions. Phone books DON'T get copyright protection for the very reasons he listed. If this is where your understanding of copyright is you need to go reeducate yourself about it.
See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
On the post: Supreme Court Asks White House To Weigh In On Copyrightability Of APIs
Re: Re: Re: Re: API is interface, not implementation
There is no such thing as "being available to all"
Other than the natural state of all knowledge and power to create, which is the sum total of what copyright is blocking.
On the post: Supreme Court Asks White House To Weigh In On Copyrightability Of APIs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: API is interface, not implementation
when they extended copyright to apply to all the text content
They didn't.
On the post: Supreme Court Asks White House To Weigh In On Copyrightability Of APIs
Re: Re: Re: No, if MM understood what API is, he'd support copyr
Another comment completely ignoring the point of the question or the realities of what copyright does and does not allow.
Perhaps it would help if you tried to answer why it is legally recognized that a recipe is not legally copyrightable? Maybe having to learn about that will help you learn why copyright isn't allowed to apply to everything anyone can create.
On the post: Supreme Court Asks White House To Weigh In On Copyrightability Of APIs
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, if MM understood what API is, he'd support c
Literally explained in this article why that is completely false. There are lots of things that are completely uncopyrightable and examples have already been given both in the article and in the comments. Like it or not some text content IS more worth of protection than some other pieces.
On the post: Just Because The Rest Of The World Doesn't Have A 1st Amendment, Doesn't Mean It Can Trample Online Speech
Re:
Section 230 doesn't do anything to anyone's ability to speak or not. It doesn't change anything about what's legal to do or not. It literally just forces you to go after the person who actually committed the act you think is wrong and not some third party just because they're easier to target.
Why exactly is it ok in your mind to punish someone other than the person who committed the wrong?
On the post: Man Wins Legal Battle Over Traffic Ticket By Convincing Court A Hash Brown Is Not A Phone
Re: There is a difference
Except that those differences are nothing any driver should not already be accustomed to handling. If you can't handle talking to someone on your phone then you can't handle talking to someone in your car.
The fact is drivers have to handle potentially distracting things all the time. This fact does not make it sensible to make handling those distractions illegal.
On the post: Behind The Scenes Look At How Facebook Dealt With Christchurch Shooting Demonstrates The Impossible Task Of Content Moderation
Re: Intent?
So it's never of any value whatsoever to see proof of someone committing a terrible act. That's an incredibly stupid and narrow minded view of anything, but especially of speech (which video of something most definitely is).
The fact that you don't agree with seeing it does not magically make the value others see in having it visible wrong. In fact you haven't even bothered to explain why you think it's wrong for it to be there. You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that everyone should "obviously" agree with you.
You're assumption was not correct.
On the post: Behind The Scenes Look At How Facebook Dealt With Christchurch Shooting Demonstrates The Impossible Task Of Content Moderation
Re: You're saying "Nerd Harder" can make the bad idea work.
So you've based your entire argument on 3 premises that are easily proven false by this very article, much less all the wealth of speech Masnick has made on this site. There's literally no point in even trying to talk with you about any conclusion you've made based on those.
On the post: State Investigator Granted Immunity For Hours-Long Detention Of Doctor At Gunpoint During A Search For Medical Records
Re:
It's important to recognize the this problem is not just with the government. Far too many people believe that any abuse is just fine as long as the police are the abusers. Until most of the populace accepts and agrees that even those who may have committed a crime should be given basic rights and protections against excessive abuse the government will continue to be free to do whatever it wants.
On the post: Wherein The Copia Institute Updates The Copyright Office On The First Amendment Problems With The DMCA
Re: Re: Re:
OF COURSE I would rather they just sue me. Because then THEY HAVE TO PROVE I DID SOMETHING WRONG. Then I get my rights before a court of law. Then due process actually exists.
None of these things happens when they are allowed to just say I did something wrong without a shred of proof or even evidence provided. In fact the whole problem with the DMCA is that the legal system isn't involved anywhere at all.
On the post: EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem with what you're saying is that you're being either dishonest or ignorant.
Search engines already block linking to sites known to exist for no other purpose than illegal piracy. And what on earth do you even mean by "register and pay tax"? That doesn't make any sense at all. If they don't register they don't get a domain name. Perhaps you could provide an example of a site you think is a "pirate site"? I'm willing to bet it will end up being a perfectly legitimate site that just has some users that have used it for piracy. That's not a pirate site. Blaming it for the acts of users on it that it didn't actively encourage is the same as blaming the mayor for any crime committed in the city they're over.
On the post: EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes
Re: Re:
It's kind of you to approach this so nicely, but your entire sentiment is unfortunately complete nonsense.
The target of this is not and never was piracy. If it were, it would target the pirates. Not the seas everyone sails on. This response to the pathetically tiny problem of piracy is stupid and insanely overblown.
On the post: Sheriff Decides The Best Way To Prep Teachers For School Shootings Is To Frighten And Injure Them
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd bet the fact that there are other places that have no guns and are therefore far far easier targets is a far more likely explanation for why this doesn't happen in places like courthouses than the fact that they have metal detectors.
On the post: Sheriff Decides The Best Way To Prep Teachers For School Shootings Is To Frighten And Injure Them
Re:
No, they shouldn't. But then the world doesn't care a crap about what should or shouldn't be. You can either accept that you need to know how to defend yourself against someone with a gun or you can take the chance that you won't be the one they shoot. Pretending there's a third option is just living in denial.
On the post: Sheriff Decides The Best Way To Prep Teachers For School Shootings Is To Frighten And Injure Them
Re:
Someday people will stop being so dang selfish throwing around these stupid assumptions and care about what's actually going on in places that have done the things you scream we're all too stupid to do.
Next >>