Connect with us

Section 230

Section 230 Immunity Isn’t Popular in Many Places. But at CES 2020, Techies Huddle and Applaud the Law

Adrienne Patton

Published

on

A group of panelists assembled at CES 2020, the world’s largest technology conference, countered the increasingly-controversial reputation that has recently enveloped Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The general consensus of the Wednesday panel at the Las Vegas trade show sponsored was that Section 230 may be in for some minor tweaking in the future, but the overall structure of the law will remain intact.

Jeff Kosseff, a law professor at United States Naval Academy, suggested that Section 230 is controversial because tech companies have become less popular with lawmakers and the public.

Section 230 offers content providers, including social media giants, immunity from liability for certain user-generated speech.

Ashkhen Kazaryan, the director of civil liberties and legal research fellow for TechFreedom, said she believed in the relationship between freedom of speech and innovation. While the majority of the world does not have Section 230 protections, certain liberties are possible because of Section 230.

Julie Samuels, executive director for Tech:NYC, said that while much of the debate around Section 230 is centered about the  big tech giants, , Section 230 helps guard a healthy and robust level  of competition.

According to Samuels, Section 230 protects platforms and businesses that want to experiment. It also enables businesses to expand fairly rapidly. The threat of harassment via litigation is very real, she said, and smaller companies are the ones who can’t afford to take legal chances. She called Section 230 a uniquely American law.

By contrast, large companies don’t want lawsuits, but they can afford them, said Samuels.

Lateef Mtima, a law professor at Howard University, agreed with Samuels assessment of Section 230. In her view, Section 230 makes small voices audible. According to Mtima, there was no Arab Spring, Me Too, or Black Lives Matter without Section 230.

The First Amendment protects free speech in the physical world, he stated, but Section 230 protects free speech in the internet world, he said to applause.

Kazaryan echoed Mtima’s assessment. She said that the people who connect and share this information are not the big players.

Moderator Michael Petricone of the Consumer Technology Association, the host of CES, asked panelists about the contemporary relevance of Section 230 in light of increasing demands for legislative changes to the law.

Mtima acknowledged that there are bad actors that abuse the Section 230 framework. But that is the price of democracy, he said.

Kazaryan lamented the changes to Section 230 when, in 2018, Congress changed the law with the passage of the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” and “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (known as FOSTA-SESTA). The measure provided that Section 230 immunity does not apply against enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws.

Kazaryan said that sex traffickers have already moved to the dark web, making it more difficult to catch them.

Adrienne Patton was a Reporter for Broadband Breakfast. She studied English rhetoric and writing at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. She grew up in a household of journalists in South Florida. Her father, the late Robes Patton, was a sports writer for the Sun-Sentinel who covered the Miami Heat, and is for whom the press lounge in the American Airlines Arena is named.

Antitrust

Section 230 Has Coddled Big Tech For Too Long, Says Co-Author of Book on Amazon

Co-author of “The Amazon Jungle” says Section 230 has allowed Big Tech to get away with far too much.

Derek Shumway

Published

on

"The Amazon Jungle" co-author Jason Boyce

A group of panelists assembled at CES 2020, the world’s largest technology conference, countered the increasingly-controversial reputation that has recently enveloped Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The general consensus of the Wednesday panel at the Las Vegas trade show sponsored was that Section 230 may be in for some minor tweaking in the future, but the overall structure of the law will remain intact.

Jeff Kosseff, a law professor at United States Naval Academy, suggested that Section 230 is controversial because tech companies have become less popular with lawmakers and the public.

Section 230 offers content providers, including social media giants, immunity from liability for certain user-generated speech.

Ashkhen Kazaryan, the director of civil liberties and legal research fellow for TechFreedom, said she believed in the relationship between freedom of speech and innovation. While the majority of the world does not have Section 230 protections, certain liberties are possible because of Section 230.

Julie Samuels, executive director for Tech:NYC, said that while much of the debate around Section 230 is centered about the  big tech giants, , Section 230 helps guard a healthy and robust level  of competition.

According to Samuels, Section 230 protects platforms and businesses that want to experiment. It also enables businesses to expand fairly rapidly. The threat of harassment via litigation is very real, she said, and smaller companies are the ones who can’t afford to take legal chances. She called Section 230 a uniquely American law.

By contrast, large companies don’t want lawsuits, but they can afford them, said Samuels.

Lateef Mtima, a law professor at Howard University, agreed with Samuels assessment of Section 230. In her view, Section 230 makes small voices audible. According to Mtima, there was no Arab Spring, Me Too, or Black Lives Matter without Section 230.

The First Amendment protects free speech in the physical world, he stated, but Section 230 protects free speech in the internet world, he said to applause.

Kazaryan echoed Mtima’s assessment. She said that the people who connect and share this information are not the big players.

Moderator Michael Petricone of the Consumer Technology Association, the host of CES, asked panelists about the contemporary relevance of Section 230 in light of increasing demands for legislative changes to the law.

Mtima acknowledged that there are bad actors that abuse the Section 230 framework. But that is the price of democracy, he said.

Kazaryan lamented the changes to Section 230 when, in 2018, Congress changed the law with the passage of the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” and “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (known as FOSTA-SESTA). The measure provided that Section 230 immunity does not apply against enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws.

Kazaryan said that sex traffickers have already moved to the dark web, making it more difficult to catch them.

Continue Reading

Section 230

Sen. Mike Lee Promotes Bills Valuing Federal Spectrum, Requiring Content Moderation Disclosures

Tim White

Published

on

Screenshot of Mike Lee taken from Silicon Slopes event

A group of panelists assembled at CES 2020, the world’s largest technology conference, countered the increasingly-controversial reputation that has recently enveloped Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The general consensus of the Wednesday panel at the Las Vegas trade show sponsored was that Section 230 may be in for some minor tweaking in the future, but the overall structure of the law will remain intact.

Jeff Kosseff, a law professor at United States Naval Academy, suggested that Section 230 is controversial because tech companies have become less popular with lawmakers and the public.

Section 230 offers content providers, including social media giants, immunity from liability for certain user-generated speech.

Ashkhen Kazaryan, the director of civil liberties and legal research fellow for TechFreedom, said she believed in the relationship between freedom of speech and innovation. While the majority of the world does not have Section 230 protections, certain liberties are possible because of Section 230.

Julie Samuels, executive director for Tech:NYC, said that while much of the debate around Section 230 is centered about the  big tech giants, , Section 230 helps guard a healthy and robust level  of competition.

According to Samuels, Section 230 protects platforms and businesses that want to experiment. It also enables businesses to expand fairly rapidly. The threat of harassment via litigation is very real, she said, and smaller companies are the ones who can’t afford to take legal chances. She called Section 230 a uniquely American law.

By contrast, large companies don’t want lawsuits, but they can afford them, said Samuels.

Lateef Mtima, a law professor at Howard University, agreed with Samuels assessment of Section 230. In her view, Section 230 makes small voices audible. According to Mtima, there was no Arab Spring, Me Too, or Black Lives Matter without Section 230.

The First Amendment protects free speech in the physical world, he stated, but Section 230 protects free speech in the internet world, he said to applause.

Kazaryan echoed Mtima’s assessment. She said that the people who connect and share this information are not the big players.

Moderator Michael Petricone of the Consumer Technology Association, the host of CES, asked panelists about the contemporary relevance of Section 230 in light of increasing demands for legislative changes to the law.

Mtima acknowledged that there are bad actors that abuse the Section 230 framework. But that is the price of democracy, he said.

Kazaryan lamented the changes to Section 230 when, in 2018, Congress changed the law with the passage of the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” and “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (known as FOSTA-SESTA). The measure provided that Section 230 immunity does not apply against enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws.

Kazaryan said that sex traffickers have already moved to the dark web, making it more difficult to catch them.

Continue Reading

Section 230

Pressed by Congress, Big Tech Defends Itself and Offers Few Solutions After Capitol Riot

Tim White

Published

on

Photo of Google CEO Sundar Pichai from a December 2018 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee by Drew Clark

A group of panelists assembled at CES 2020, the world’s largest technology conference, countered the increasingly-controversial reputation that has recently enveloped Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The general consensus of the Wednesday panel at the Las Vegas trade show sponsored was that Section 230 may be in for some minor tweaking in the future, but the overall structure of the law will remain intact.

Jeff Kosseff, a law professor at United States Naval Academy, suggested that Section 230 is controversial because tech companies have become less popular with lawmakers and the public.

Section 230 offers content providers, including social media giants, immunity from liability for certain user-generated speech.

Ashkhen Kazaryan, the director of civil liberties and legal research fellow for TechFreedom, said she believed in the relationship between freedom of speech and innovation. While the majority of the world does not have Section 230 protections, certain liberties are possible because of Section 230.

Julie Samuels, executive director for Tech:NYC, said that while much of the debate around Section 230 is centered about the  big tech giants, , Section 230 helps guard a healthy and robust level  of competition.

According to Samuels, Section 230 protects platforms and businesses that want to experiment. It also enables businesses to expand fairly rapidly. The threat of harassment via litigation is very real, she said, and smaller companies are the ones who can’t afford to take legal chances. She called Section 230 a uniquely American law.

By contrast, large companies don’t want lawsuits, but they can afford them, said Samuels.

Lateef Mtima, a law professor at Howard University, agreed with Samuels assessment of Section 230. In her view, Section 230 makes small voices audible. According to Mtima, there was no Arab Spring, Me Too, or Black Lives Matter without Section 230.

The First Amendment protects free speech in the physical world, he stated, but Section 230 protects free speech in the internet world, he said to applause.

Kazaryan echoed Mtima’s assessment. She said that the people who connect and share this information are not the big players.

Moderator Michael Petricone of the Consumer Technology Association, the host of CES, asked panelists about the contemporary relevance of Section 230 in light of increasing demands for legislative changes to the law.

Mtima acknowledged that there are bad actors that abuse the Section 230 framework. But that is the price of democracy, he said.

Kazaryan lamented the changes to Section 230 when, in 2018, Congress changed the law with the passage of the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” and “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (known as FOSTA-SESTA). The measure provided that Section 230 immunity does not apply against enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws.

Kazaryan said that sex traffickers have already moved to the dark web, making it more difficult to catch them.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending