It is not a decision that is an artifact of its time, which is why they still teach this case when teaching torts even in the 21st century, because the principle is applicable. It's also not clear the court (or anyone) back then knew it was a problem with bone sepsis. That was speculation made by a friend with medical knowledge when I recounted the case to him.
It's not insulting. It's the upshot of what you point out. I can't tell you how many Europeans speak of "balancing" speech. And I don't think it's unfair to think that any approach that allows speech to ever be subordinated like that is an approach that reflects limits in how much it is valued. Also, re: WWII, I disagree, mostly. There was some tech investment that came from the military and went through schools that then affected what tech businesses were spawned (ex: HP). But there are also differences in corporate laws, employment law, and other ancillary law that bear on how easy it is to launch a start-up in the US and EU. (But the liability protection differences also matter a lot.)
That's a common view but I don't think I quite buy it. I think a bigger reason for no 230 in, say, Europe, is that, at least in Europe, there was the ecommerce directive, which swallowed up all the oxygen, just good enough that there could be nothing better. I also don't think that culturally the EU has taken speech protection as seriously as in the US overall. It pays lip service to the idea, but is perfectly willing to throw it under the bus culturally and legally whenever the issues get sticky. (In the US we also sometimes do culturally, but the law is more hardened in favor of speech protection.) You may have a point about lawsuit frequency, but then again there are also conspicuously fewer European start-ups in Europe (although there several reasons for that).
230 protects platforms for liability arising from user-generated content. But the point the brief makes is that we need that protection both for when we're the platform, hosting others' user-generated content (such as in the comments), and also when we're the user spreading our message via other platforms, or even hosting user communities on other platforms, which all need Section 230 in order to be available to us.
ACTUALLY... While I appreciate the defense, the reality is that I have had training in print media. Then later became a blogger. THEN later became a lawyer... Should NDAA have been spelled out? Maybe. But not necessarily. The article isn't about the NDAA, and I didn't want to down out the technical details I did want to explain about INFORM with additional technical details that weren't necessary to understanding what's wrong with this bill. Plus when people do refer to the NDAA they often do by acronym, rather than by its full name. The only reason to mention it here is so people recognize it as one of these must-pass bills once news about it comes to the fore. But otherwise the NDAA is of little importance to this post.
No, I'm sorry, but you'd have to leap over a lot of precedential language to find it illegal. For instance, it presumes too much to even complain the cry was false. You'd need more than that, like an indifference to the falsity, a la NY Times v. Sullivan.
The issue is that even if it should be illegal, that question was never adjudicated. Holmes just made it up. And it's important to litigate it, before making it the rule, because as I and others have pointed out, you don't want a rule that will deter people from crying out when there really is a fire. In any case, you can argue that it should be the rule all you want. But the main point of the post is that it is absolutely wrong to suggest that it's what the rule IS.
I get your point but don't agree that it's just a pedantic distinction. I don't think people cite the trope out of a general sense that perhaps certain speech SHOULD trigger some sort of consequence; I think they cite it because they think it DOES. And because they think it does, they can't understand why we can't just have some more regulation to punish other bad speech they think is similar. And so the regulatory conversation is not one about whether that should be that rule, but a more ignorant tug-of-war between those who think such regulation is absolutely already legally on the table and those who better understand the actual reality that it's not. Which means we can never have a useful conversation about what the regulation should be since we're not all on the same page about how much would need to change to get there (and also why that much change would likely be bad).
I meant literally "non-profit" organizations like Wikimedia, as opposed to for-profit commercial enterprises like Twitter.
Following the law is asking for a lawsuit? The problem here isn't actually with the law; it's that the court ignored it and replaced it with its own different law instead.
That may be a consideration, but the explanation may instead be that they are trying to extract more money from cable retransmission agreements, and if there's a free alternative, then those deals will be less lucrative for them. In other words, it weakens their monopoly. Which is what this statutory provision expressly was going to do.
Interesting, but not sure it's necessarily correct. Sometimes I think it might be: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210109/13053746025/dear-section-230-critics-when-senators-hawley-cruz-are-your-biggest-allies-time-to-rethink.shtml But often I think Congress just doesn't understand what they are about to break: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210723/09303347230/senator-klobuchar-proposes-unconstitutional-law-that-would-kill-legions-people-if-trump-were-still-president.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210205/12142446194/senators-warner-hirono-klobuchar-demand-end-internet-economy.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210625/09355347057/congressman-nadler-throws-worlds-worst-slumber-party-order-to-destroy-internet.shtml And the problem is that they don't care to learn.
I used the word "clinical detachment" in the post for a reason.
One of these days I need to write a post about this too... Because FWIW my mom was a COBOL programmer and in tech since the 60s.
This was the 90s, and just a small group of friends, so I don't think fear of a harassment charge was operative here. Also, there was nothing comedic about it; I wanted to discuss it with the clinical detachment we were using to discuss other e-commerce success stories. But they couldn't, and my sense was that they just thought it was too icky a topic and couldn't get past that reflex. As a result, it felt to me like there was an almost impenetrable brick wall that I couldn't get past. It was weird, and unpleasant. I felt almost physically trapped because there was nothing I could say, or intellectually explain, to unstick the conversation without abandoning the topic altogether. Like tires spinning in mud, I couldn't get any traction to move the conversation forward. It left me with a weird sense of powerlessness that I can still remember vividly today.
Thanks, BF! Of course, you should always agree with me :-p I liked the Stargate TV shows because Samantha was a smart, capable woman who didn't die and didn't have to have love affairs with her colleagues to be an equal protagonist. Also later MASH episodes, particularly with the arrival of Potter, BJ, and Charles, and the increasing creative influence of Alda, were much better. The one where Lt. Kelley stands up to Hawkeye stands out in particular. And Swit didn't sell Hoolihan short, especially after the character divorced. The frustrations she experienced being a career woman in that age were well-told.
No. You still have to issue-spot and know where to look for the rules, which won't work out well with a ticking clock if you don't have enough of a mastery of the subject to quickly know where to look. And you also still need to be able to write a cogent analysis, which open notes won't help you with there either.
It's not really a question of whether the government v. corporation distinction rings true for you. They ARE different, as a matter of law and also practical reality.