The US Anti-Terrorism Act, is a federal law that lets Americans recover damages related to “an act of international terrorism”.
An American family claims that YouTube routinely and unlawfully recommends videos by the group ‘ISIL (ISIS)’ which boasts about the Paris attacks that killed 130 people including their son.
Apparently, for whatever reason, the government protects internet companies like FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, YOUTUBE and all the others, from being sued.
In practice, this means that they are making millions by promoting pornographers, terrorists, law-breaking companies and hostile foreign countries.
But they are ‘immune’ from the laws which punish ‘We the People”.
The examples are too many to list here, but dozens of recent terrorist attacks, here and overseas were planned over the internet – including the notorious invasion of congress on June 6th in Washington DC.
The so-called, ‘Communications Decency Act’ protects online companies from liability for what they publish.
But, the fact is, that they routinely edit, delete, promote and prohibit content as they see fit.
A recent example is Elon Musk deciding to ‘cancel’ former President Donald Trump.
One quote claims that their decisions are based on protecting us, their users, from seeing anything which they deem to be “obscene or otherwise objectionable”.
The law (Section 230) means that a company which ‘provides or uses an interactive computer service’ cannot be held liable for that information.
A plaintiff cannot sue the company for information provided to them by a third party. That means that they are immune from responsibility for damaging you, me and ‘all of the above’.
If the law was repealed, then these so-called ‘online platforms’ would be held legally liable for everything they publish including content submitted by their users.
Google was sued, for a post disparaging a business.
But the courts decided that although GOOGLE can and does remove, delete or limit posters they do not “edit or substantively change the actual
content”.
As I See It, that means that they can trash submissions that they don’t support and give prominence and priority to those they do.
What I don’t understand is that ‘Section 230’ seems to say that online companies are not protected against accusations of ‘negligence and illegal behavior’ like these:-.
-Negligently designing a website or service, which caused harm to a user.
-Materially contributing to illegality of information or harmful nature of content.
-Failing to warn users of a known danger on the platform.
-And federal civil rights, antitrust, Fair Housing Act, privacy laws or intellectual property claims.
Conversely, these companies can hide behind the excuse that “the content came from a third party” which means just about everything that they display.
It has been reported that Congress is talking about changing the law.
Options include:
– Repeal it completely or at least limit it’s scope.
– Or impose a few ‘obligations’ and alter the so-called ‘Good Samaritan’ provision.
The “21st Century FREE Speech Act”, would repeal Section 230 completely and reclassify GOOGLE and the others as ‘common carriers’.
This would require them all to give access to anyone without picking and choosing for or against individual users.
This would include, for example, Political views and Religious affiliations.
-Is there a ‘right or wrong’ here?
If we demand that all submitted ‘content’ is reviewed and edited, then it’s the super-billionaires and their cronies who will decide/dictate what we have a right to see.
Unlimited ‘Free Speech’ for them!
An end to ‘Free Speech’ for us!
-But, if we demand that GOOGLE etc have to publish anything and everything that is submitted to them, then the internet will turn into more of a ‘cesspool’ that it already is.
‘til next time. .
