Quote:
Originally Posted by Due
Of course it's their responsibility to remove illegal content, section 230 doesn't give you immunity to allow illegal content on your platform. It gives you immunity to keep operating an open platform as long as you can show you actively remove illegal content and ban repeat offenders.
Without section 230 places like facebook, twitter, redit, youtube, gfy.com suddenly assume liability for what the average John Doe is posting, suddenly Karen can now sue GFY.
Another example Trump could sue GFY, YouTube & ATT because John Doe posted a viral video about some stupid shit Trump did on Youtube using his ATT internet and shared it on GFY.
This isn't about porn, porn will be impacted, it can have a huge impact on our ability to "speak freely online". Imagine a debate where each answer have to be manually moderated
|
Open your own website and feel free to publish whatever you want... You sure can speak freely. 
...but be prepared to take responsibility for that. You will be the moderator of your own content.
All this crying about internet freedom is spread by people who are affraid of losing access to free content online, cause they know it's pirated. Free speech doesn't mean you can openly spread anything. There are already laws in place that limit public speech.
Both TV and radio stations are liable for what they broadcast and no, they can't claim this is against freedom of speech - it's their medium and their responsibility to keep an eye on the content. They won't broadcast pirated films or songs. They are not allowed to let politicians spread racial hatred, which is a criminal offence, and call it freedom of speech. So why should internet platforms be exempted from what is the norm in other mass media???
Time to make them liable...
