Computers, Privacy & the Constitution

View   r7  >  r6  ...
MarvinGallowayFirstPaper 7 - 20 May 2021 - Main.MarvinGalloway
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 12 to 12
 

Subsection A (Background)

When Section 230 was passed as an amendment to the Telecommunications Act in 1996, with overwhelming bipartisan support, it was viewed as a tool to incentivize self-regulation by companies such as CompuServe? and America Online with regards to user-generated third party content. The immunity provision of Section 230, safe for a few exceptions, provided internet intermediaries with protection from liability for such content and was intended to create a safe haven for innovation by reducing the threat of litigation.
Changed:
<
<
Marvin, you should complete your first draft now.
>
>		 <blo
 

Subsub 1 (Legislative History)

By the early 1990’s, widespread use of the internet began to take place in most parts of America and with it concerns over the moderation of content caught the eyes of lawmakers. Internet-service providers were increasingly unsure how to navigate the thin line between being distributors of content and being publishers of user-generated content. While the differences may have appeared to be miniscule at first sight, legal liability drastically differed for both. With distributors mostly protected and publishers not, Congress sought to establish a rule that provided a shield from liability while simultaneously ensuring that some form of moderation was available to platforms themselves. Finally, in 1996 both houses of Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 of which Section 230 was a part of.
Line: 34 to 32
 Democrats on the contrary have called for increased content moderation by platforms and have threatened to repeal the immunity provision if more stringent enforcement of protections against hate speech do not take place. Proactive moderation in order to keep a liability shield could certainly be interpreted to be philosophically opposite of the neutrality proposals made by Republicans.

Subsection B (Why Section 230 should survive)

Changed:
<
<		In this section I aim to discuss reasons why reforming Section 230 seems unfeasible and unlikely. Furthermore, I want to point out how. Currently proposed alternatives possess intricate downsides as compared to Section 230 in its current state.
>
>		Reforming Section 230 seems unfeasible and unlikely. Furthermore, currently proposed alternatives possess intricate downsides as compared to Section 230 in its current state.
 
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.

Revision 7r7 - 20 May 2021 - 12:38:49 - MarvinGalloway
Revision 6r6 - 05 Apr 2021 - 21:23:25 - MarvinGalloway
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM