Get Your Otherwise Objectionable Gear Before The Senate Takes It Away!
from the what-timing dept
Get your Otherwise Objectionable gear in the Techdirt store on Threadless »
On Monday we released our line of Otherwise Objectionable gear in our store on Threadless and, the very next day, GOP Senators unveiled their latest attempt at truly stupid Section 230 reform: a bill that would remove those two critical words from the law. Of course, those who understand how important Section 230’s moderation protections are to the internet will fight to prevent this bill from passing, and then there’s the fact that it’s pretty obviously unconstitutional — but while the fight continues, there’s never been a better time to declare your Otherwise Objectionable status with pride.
As usual, there’s a wide variety of gear available in this and other designs — including t-shirts, hoodies, notebooks, buttons, phone cases, mugs, stickers, and of course the now-standard face masks. Check out all our designs and items in the Techdirt store on Threadless!
Filed Under: gear, otherwise objectionable
Comments on “Get Your Otherwise Objectionable Gear Before The Senate Takes It Away!”
Here’s something that’s somewhat marginally related, but I thought still interesting on the front of Section 230, and the illusion that the FCC has anything to do with it.
I’m currently studying for my amateur radio license, and one of the sample questions on the test is this:
Question: "Who is accountable should a repeater inadvertently retransmit communications that violate the FCC rules"
Layman Translation: "Who is accountable should a piece of automated equipment that simply relays information relay something that breaks the rules."
Correct Answer: "The control operator of the originating station"
Layman Translation: "The person who said it"
Even in examinations that verify that a person understands Part 97 (Amateur Radio Service) of Title 47 (Telecommunications) (1) of the US Code of Federal Regulations, the FCC understands liability correctly. If they were to say any differently about Section 230, it might sound a little, I don’t know, disingenuous…
(1) Section 97.205(g): The control operator of a repeater that retransmits inadvertently communications that violate the rules in this part is not accountable for the violative communications.
I’d have to check on the regulatory history of 47 USC 97.205(g).
It used to be that the control operator of a repeater was indeed responsible for monitoring what went over the repeater, and in cases of abuse, being able to silence the abuser via a control link. (And could still be held responsible for the first F-bomb to drop. Surprisingly, I don’t know of any repeater system that was designed with the infamous 7-second delay to give a control op time to react.) The control operator of the repeater and the control operator of the originating station were jointly and severally responsible.
The FCC enforcement of Amateur Radio, back then, was relatively friendly; ‘self-policing’ was a concept. The exception cases (the first F-bomb drops before the operator can command the control link) were handled with selective enforcement. The regulatory environment got considerably more adversarial over time, and obviously in a hostile environment, ‘you are responsible for what someone else said.’ is an unsustainable posture. I’m glad they fixed that part.