Section 230 Washington Post

Even so the washington post s decision to publish this op ed by charlie kirk attacking section 230 may be the worst we ve seen.

Section 230 washington post. By contrast if someone printed the identical claims in a washington post ad the post would face liability along with the person who bought the ad. 15 following the post s reporting on hunter biden and the subsequent. What section 230 does is protect facebook from liability for defamatory content. It is so full of factually false information misleading spin and.

This washington post piece describes the prospect of the federal communications commission fcc removing section 230 protection for internet intermediaries like facebook and twitter as regulation this turns reality on its head. It says that companies that operate online forums everything from the billions of posts made on facebook to. The new legislation would target section 230 a decades old portion of law that spares social media sites from being held liable for the posts photos and videos uploaded to their sites by their. The federal communications commission chairman ajit pai announced plans to clarify the meaning of section 230 on oct.

A blueprint for the next administration to reform section 230. On cnbc s power lunch tony romm of the washington post said wednesday s hearing in regards to section 230 was such a political and partisan affair that he doesn t believe most investors. Section 230 is a provision of the 1996 communications decency act. Section 230 as it s commonly known provides interactive computer services that is anything from web hosts to websites to social media companies with broad immunity from civil cases over the.

Section 230 effectively allows facebook to profit from being a conduit of libelous material. This means for example if someone transmitted false assertions on facebook that a person was a thief and a murderer facebook could not be sued.