01-31-2021, 06:28 PM
Sarcany wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
I'm thinking maybe we could rework Section 230 so that if an internet platform wanted Section 230 protection they would have to show that they have systems in place to filter out content that is deemed too dangerous - with "too dangerous" to be spelled out with some precision in the legislation changing Section 230.
Yeah, that's gonna work wonders. We only have prior restraints on speech when we want to censor really bad stuff.
So, they spell out in the legislation that endorsing violence and sedition are unlawful.
And then two years later the republicans are back in power and they define any online speech calling for protection of civil liberties (other than the 2nd amendment) as sedition and then selectively enforce it everywhere except 8kun, Breitbart and whatever Trump picks up to replace Twitter.
Good idea!
Section 230 already has some limitations on "bad stuff"; e.g. this section states, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute" and "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property."
Should we drop those restrictions? Should we add to them? Unless you are saying we should drop all such restrictions, then what we are talking about is where to draw the line about what kinds of things should be restricted as too socially damaging. As I said in the OP, " I'll admit, though, that it's a huge problem to come to a consensus on many things (not child sex trafficking, though, fortunately) about what constitutes "sufficiently socially damaging"." I think this is where your valid concern about turning Section 230 into a partisan football comes in. Adding to the list of things constrained by Section 230 could become a slippery partisan slope.
As you suggest, it could be that Republicans would respond to Democratic efforts to change to add some restrictions if the two sides can't come to a consensus about it. But it's not like the Republicans need the impetus of Democrats trying to make such changes to want to make changes to Section 230 themselves. For example, the cult leader of the Republican Party has repeatedly called for the elimination of Section 230 altogether and it is echoed by many of his followers.
About your comment, "We only have prior restraints on speech when we want to censor really bad stuff", I would note that most privately owned internet platforms already have more restraints - like many things written in their Terms of Service - that are more restrictive than those outlined in Section 230 as it now stands. Twitter threw Trump off their platform. As I said in a post here, I wouldn't be surprised if Reddit already had things in its Terms of Service that restrict speech that calls for violence.