Public law can rein in private law, but US law tends to generally permits quite a bit. Still, while courts have been especially generous in recent years, there's nothing about this set-up that seems anywhere near any sort of close call where some courts might see reason to try to check it. The point I was trying to make in the post is that there's really nothing objectionable about this arrangement.
Appreciate the defense of 230, although I want to correct one thing: it's not accurate to say that 230 immunity could ever be "revoked." The issue is that there are situations -- such as the one you identify, where the platform was the party who is construed to have created the content in question -- when Section 230 immunity simply doesn't apply. That's different than saying it was "revoked." There are no circumstances when it has been, or could have ever been "revoked." What gets litigated is the question of whether it ever applied in the first place.
Lots of people of course need access to the law, but this brief is written with the specific needs of legal practitioners in mind. That's why signing on is limited to them.
It's not really relevant to whether the lawsuit is an illegitimate attempt to chill legitimate speech, which is why I didn't mention it earlier. But it does suggest taking his claims of harm with a grain of salt. By his own admission he's lived a life full of self-destructive choices, in no way due to the speech of anyone else.
Drug users are also not known for their great control over their inhibitions, so the fact that he has been one also goes to suggest that the accusations about him are quite plausible.
There's nothing to refine. Every time it's revisited, it's expanded. Because the essential reason for it hasn't changed. There's no way to "refine" it without making it open season on critics.
(So in that respect it is sacrosanct, because the right to free speech is either meaningful or it's illusory. And you only get the former by upholding it.)
Yes we are talking about newspapers. The right to resist being forced to carry (or censor) speech is a right that is not just reserved for newspapers. That's the whole point of the post, that it's broadly applicable.
> First, once you launch an IPO and become a publicly traded company, you are voluntarily accepting a whole new set of regulatory framework that you have to operate under. There is no comparison between your privately owned and published blog, and the publications of a publicly traded company.
Implicit with this statement is the idea that a newspaper owned by a public company can be censored because it is owned by a public company. But I can't imagine any law backing up such an assertion. True, there are various regulations that do apply to public companies that don't apply to private ones, but these regulations can't be targeted at the editorial policy of the publication. Which is what I said here: regulation, even via anti-trust, can target the non-editorial company practices, but not the editorial ones.
I'm not sure it even necessarily reaches the crime/fraud exemption, although I left this point vague in the post. Communications are only privileged when made in the course of seeking legal advice. The DOJ in the Cohen matter seems to be arguing that Cohen wasn't practicing law, so there were no communications that could be made in the course of seeking legal advice from him.
That's the reason it's not being dismissed: the appeal has already been argued, so there's nothing for anyone to show up to. All that needs to happen is for the court to rule.
On the post: The Digital Copyright Act: We Told Senator Tillis Not To Do This, But He Did It Anyway. So We Told Him Again.
Re: Re: I hate sounding like a pessimist and a contrarian
There's value in creating a record. More so for administrative rulemakings than legislation, but it's not for nothing here too.
On the post: The Unasked Question In Tech Policy: Where Do We Get The Lawyers?
Re: Re: Re:
See what we've written on anti-SLAPP. That's basically the point of it.
On the post: Why We Filed A Comment With Facebook's Oversight Board
Re: Re: Re: Private Law Oversight
Huh? Public agency regulations are public law. The Facebook Oversight Board is not a public agency.
On the post: Why We Filed A Comment With Facebook's Oversight Board
Re: Re: Private Law Oversight
Public law can rein in private law, but US law tends to generally permits quite a bit. Still, while courts have been especially generous in recent years, there's nothing about this set-up that seems anywhere near any sort of close call where some courts might see reason to try to check it. The point I was trying to make in the post is that there's really nothing objectionable about this arrangement.
On the post: In New 5Pointz Decision, Second Circuit Concludes That VARA Trumps The Constitution
Re:
The weird thing is that the plaintiffs' expert's last name was actually "Vara." (Either that or the court made a weird typo in the decision...)
On the post: Welcome News: DC Circuit Revives The Constitutional Challenge Of FOSTA
Re: Re: Re:
I think it's a unit. You pluralize the unit.
On the post: Welcome News: DC Circuit Revives The Constitutional Challenge Of FOSTA
Re: Re:
I'm amazed I got this past you...
On the post: The Wisconsin Supreme Court Gets Section 230 Right
Re: immunity
Appreciate the defense of 230, although I want to correct one thing: it's not accurate to say that 230 immunity could ever be "revoked." The issue is that there are situations -- such as the one you identify, where the platform was the party who is construed to have created the content in question -- when Section 230 immunity simply doesn't apply. That's different than saying it was "revoked." There are no circumstances when it has been, or could have ever been "revoked." What gets litigated is the question of whether it ever applied in the first place.
On the post: Both Sides Want The Supreme Court To Review Decision Denying Copyright In Georgia's Law. How About You?
Why just legal practitioners
Lots of people of course need access to the law, but this brief is written with the specific needs of legal practitioners in mind. That's why signing on is limited to them.
On the post: Shitty Man Shows How Shitty Men Can Shit On Free Speech By Suing Over The Shitty Media Men List
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Drug users are also not known for their great control over their inhibitions, so the fact that he has been one also goes to suggest that the accusations about him are quite plausible.
On the post: Shitty Man Shows How Shitty Men Can Shit On Free Speech By Suing Over The Shitty Media Men List
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(So in that respect it is sacrosanct, because the right to free speech is either meaningful or it's illusory. And you only get the former by upholding it.)
On the post: Shitty Man Shows How Shitty Men Can Shit On Free Speech By Suing Over The Shitty Media Men List
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't mention that in the post, but he's candidly admitted to the drug use, and it's referenced in at least one of the linked articles.
On the post: Shitty Man Shows How Shitty Men Can Shit On Free Speech By Suing Over The Shitty Media Men List
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wherein Jean Luc Picard Learns How Not To Moderate Twitter
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wherein Jean Luc Picard Learns How Not To Moderate Twitter
Re:
On the post: How Regulating Platforms' Content Moderation Means Regulating Speech - Even Yours.
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Regulating Platforms' Content Moderation Means Regulating Speech - Even Yours.
Re:
Implicit with this statement is the idea that a newspaper owned by a public company can be censored because it is owned by a public company. But I can't imagine any law backing up such an assertion. True, there are various regulations that do apply to public companies that don't apply to private ones, but these regulations can't be targeted at the editorial policy of the publication. Which is what I said here: regulation, even via anti-trust, can target the non-editorial company practices, but not the editorial ones.
On the post: If Trump Is So Worried About Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege, He Should End The NSA's Bulk Surveillance (And CPB Device Seizures)
Re: Re: Re: Crime/Fraud Exception
On the post: If Trump Is So Worried About Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege, He Should End The NSA's Bulk Surveillance (And CPB Device Seizures)
Re: Crime/Fraud Exception
On the post: We Interrupt Today's News With An Update From The Monkey Selfie Case
Re:
Next >>