Issues__in__cyberlaw_discussion_6_1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
California State University, Fullerton *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by marttiatoo
Internet social-media platforms have been given vast safe harbour protections from legal
responsibility for any material users publish on their media. These provisions are in place to
prevent companies from being held liable for illegal information. These safeguards, which
may be found charted in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, were
enrolled twenty-five years ago, in an era that has long since passed (Montalbano et al., 2022).
When technological optimism was naiver and technical capabilities were more rudimentary.
Since the turn of the century, there have been many developments, which mean such
safeguards still need to be updated. It is time to reevaluate and update such measures, and it is
also time for all business executives whose organizations depend on online platforms to
understand better how their company may be impacted Judges from across the ideological
spectrum voiced caution about upsetting the delicate balance maintained by Section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act as they deliberated over the crucial issue of Gonzalez v.
Google. Despite this, several judges acknowledged that a narrower construction of the
liability shield would make sense (Sinnreich et al., 2022).
The family of an American citizen murdered in a terrorist incident in Paris is the plaintiff in
the present lawsuit. Petitioners contend that Google and its subsidiary YouTube broke the
Anti-Terrorism Act by providing material support to ISIS by promoting the group's films
using YouTube's recommendation system. They say this constitutes a violation of the act. The
lower courts have sided with Google and agreed with its position that Section 230 shields the
firm from liability for any third-party information that may be put on its site (Montalbano et
al., 2022).
A self-serving and cynical effort is being made to consolidate the company's dominance.
Mark Zuckerberg seeks to sell Congress on Facebook's preferred approach of altering the
federal statute as a crucial pillar of the internet. Lawmakers need to recognize it for what it
truly is: an attempt to entrench the company's domination (Sinnreich et al., 2022).
References
Montalbano K. (2022). Controlling rudeness on anonymous internet platforms: reimagining
section 230 and content moderation, Communication regulations and laws, 27(3-4),
187-219. doi:10.1080/10811680.2022.2136442
Sinnreich A, Sanchez-Santos M, Perry NW, and Aufderheide P. (2022). Performative Media
Policy, "The evolution of Section 230 from a regulatory act to a loyalty oath," In
Communication
Law
and
Policy
will
publish,
27(3-4),
167-
186.doi:10.1080/10811680.2022.2136472
Reply:
The US Congress enacted a statute known as Section 230 to foster Internet growth. Web
hosts, consumers, and intermediary service providers are afforded extensive protection under
this legislation when making a good-faith decision about whether or not to modify the
contents or limit access to undesirable information generated by third parties. In addition,
web hosts that use steps to restrict access to unlawful or otherwise objectionable material are
protected from legal action by this provision. In addition, this policy shields website owners
from legal action if they take down or limit access to content infringing on other parties'
rights. Whether the original document would be constitutionally protected or not makes no
difference. This is why Section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act covers websites
that host and distribute material produced by other parties. Social networking sites like Social
Media, X, Google, and Yelp are just a few instances; other examples include review sites like
Trustpilot and discussion boards like StubHub. X, Google, and Facebook are just a few
examples.
Reply:
Under Section 230, social media platforms like Facebook and search engines like Google are
protected from any prospective legal action that might be brought against them or the users of
their services. Republicans, as well as Democrats, have expressed concerns over the
comprehensive nature of the protections provided by Section 230. The Supreme Court is now
hearing several cases in which it is alleged that major online platforms condoned the
dissemination of terrorist propaganda on their websites. ISPs like Google and Facebook are
protected from legal repercussions because of Section 230 of the Telecommunications
Decency Act. This legal condition applies if a claim is brought forward based on material
supplied by someone else while using the ISP's service. For instance, if someone uploads a
bogus Google Review about your company and it is defamatory, you cannot sue Facebook for
defamation since Google cannot be sued for libel. In this scenario, Facebook would be liable
for the slander, but Google would not be. They are exempt from criminal prosecution by the
230th section of the CDA.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help