Bulletin - nytt mediaprojekt till höger

(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).[1]]

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

As the co-author of Section 230, let me make this clear: there is nothing in the law about political neutrality. It does not say companies like Twitter are forced to carry misinformation about voting, especially from the president.

Efforts to erode Section 230 will only make online content more likely to be false and dangerous.

Protecting expression that resists the tyranny of those in power is the very foundation of the First Amendment. Section 230 does not prevent Internet companies from moderating offensive or false content. And it does not change the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Källa: https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052259617611776

"Social media companies, like other companies, have the freedom to choose how they want to run their business, as long as they comply with applicable law," said Robert Foehl, executive in residence for the business law and ethics department at the Ohio University Online Master of Business Administration program.

"YouTube and other social media companies maintain content policies that inform their users of what content is acceptable and unacceptable on their platforms," added Foehl. "Potential users of YouTube's social media service have the ability to freely choose whether they will abide by YouTube's content policy when submitting content, or whether they will seek out an alternative platform that is more supportive of their content and expressions. Social media companies are within their rights to 'police' the content submitted by users to ensure compliance with their content policies."

"As to whether YouTube was 'right' in an ethical sense is a debate without end," explained Craig Barkacs, professor of business law and ethics in the Business Master's Degree Program at the University of San Diego School of Business. "As to whether YouTube has the legal 'right' to ban the video, the answer is yes."

Barkacs added that in the private sector, for the most part the line is where the privately owned enterprise chooses to draw it. "When it comes to the topic of freedom of speech, so many people seem unaware that First Amendment protections pertain only to the government – not the private sector."