undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmicrotherion6y ago0 comments

To use a different example, somebody today used the New York Times web site: Section 230 gives them immunity for anything posted by randos in the comments to their articles, where they operate as a platform.

Section 230 does NOT give the NYT immunity for anything in the articles themselves, where they operate as a publisher. However, absent S. 230 protection, those articles and their publisher still enjoy regular First Amendment protection, which is quite strong. In particular, there are nearly insurmountable obstacles for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit in the US.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

triceratops6y ago· 1 in thread

> Section 230 gives them immunity for anything posted by randos in the comments to their articles

You're aware that comments on NYT articles are also human-moderated, yes?

microtherionOP6y ago

Yes, and section 230 explicitly states that moderation does not waive that immunity:

(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 [...]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse