Quote:

---

the laws intent was not protection to suppress political or scientific debate

---

You are correct about this.

Quote:

---

I do feel that carving out protections for companies to do so should be unconstitutional.

---

Based on what?

The question I always come back to is how do you fix it? If the position is that "anything that is protected speech should be allowed," that turns every site into a cesspool because there's a lot of nasty **** that's protected speech.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

the laws intent was not protection to suppress political or scientific debate

---

You are correct about this.

Quote:

---

I do feel that carving out protections for companies to do so should be unconstitutional.

---

Based on what?

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...

By passing a law that carved out exemptions to the constitution without amending it, Congress has passed a law abridging freedom of speech by allowing SOME companies the ability to perform GOV'T PROTECTED censorship.

The law does not carve out an exemption to the constitution. I really don't even understand what you are saying. Sorry.

Passing a law that says you can't sue a company for a certain decision does not violate the constitution. The government has not punished speech or prevented someone from speaking

You aren't going to see anyone make that argument you suggested in a case. It doesn't make any sense

Troutslime said:

---

Watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix

---

This is a good criticism of the film

Conservative Ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

titan said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Joe already calling the shots???

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-president-election-section-230-communications-decency-act-revoke

---

Well, that's startling --- Biden wants to strike 230 also?? They helped him steal the election by suppressing information and dissemination of it---and still are, as witness certain twitter shutdowns the last two days.

What's up with this?

---

These calls to strike 230 must be resisted regardless of whether they are from Trump or from Biden or from anyone else.

---

No, they shouldn't. This is is a lot bigger than electoral politics. My 18 year-old nephew committed suicide in late April. He learned how to do it from a website called sanctionedsuicide. Look it up. Within state legislatures across the country, the party that opposes these changes are Democrats. Thanks for your support of Democrats, Eric.

---

How were there ever successful suicides before the internet?

I'm sorry for your loss.

AAggie said:

---

Needs to be MODIFIED. Not repealed.

---

Haven't you been paying attention to Trump.

This is most likely the plan. Get it modified before Biden takes office. Biden really might repeal it to pay off the plaintiff's lawyers.

Yeah, well, there were pipe bombs way before the internet too.

That doesn't mean we should have websites that inform people on how to build better pipe bombs.

Well that plans not going to work at this point

And the "national security" crying wolf likely killed any small chance that existed to get it done.

Im Gipper said:

---

Crybaby in chief not happy!

#diaperdon

---

If this is true maybe I need to start a Twitter account. #diaperdon

I mean yeah, do something constructive with your free time

learn a skill
finish a project
read a book
talk trash on twitter

BMX Bandit said:

---

Well that plans not going to work at this point

And the "national security" crying wolf likely killed any small chance that existed to get it done.

---

Maybe not.

We'll see.

BusterAg said:

---

AAggie said:

---

Needs to be MODIFIED. Not repealed.

---

Haven't you been paying attention to Trump.

This is most likely the plan. Get it modified before Biden takes office. Biden really might repeal it to pay off the plaintiff's lawyers.

---

What would you suggest the modifications be that wouldn't create something worse?

Quote:

---

(a)Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1)
The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)
These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)
The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)
Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

(b)Policy

It is the policy of the United States
(1)
to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)
to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)
to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)
to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

(c)Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#fn002009][1][/url]

---

I'm not a legislator, but here is a cut:

1) The protections offered in c should be considered in light of the policy of the United States in B. In questions of doubt, the policy considerations in B should guide enforcement.
2) Make sure that publishers don't get the protections in (c)(2).
3) Define publishers pretty broadly. Define interactive computer services as to expressly exclude publishers.
4) Require companies that want (c)(2) protections to declare in their terms of service that they are not publishers
5) Require interactive computer services to inform providers of content of any and all restrictions that have been placed on their content, and the reasons for those restrictions.
6) Define restrictions pretty broadly, including throttling, shadow banning, etc.
7) Give out hefty, statutory damage minimums for each violation, payable to providers of content.