Alert - Weaponizeing Section 230 against the 2A

hso said:

The problem for us is that many on the political right are wanting to remove protections in the Communications Decency Act as well for different reasons.

Click to expand...

Which is yet another example of why letting the 2A continue to be a political issue, rather than a pure civil rights issue, is absolutely poisonous to the cause. And keeping with the intent of "activism" here, the solution is to seek out like-minded entities who oppose blatant 1A attacks, and oppose this for reasons outside the scope of our own interests. In this case, that would be the likes of the ACLU, etc.

We win by broadening our base.

I watched a video on this event and I was curious how a good constitutional lawyer would no be able to get the unbalanced application of the same law throw out. Equal protection under the law and all. Picking winners and losers by manipulating statutes is slimy lawyer crap, and I hate it.

hso said:

endorsed by Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady, Giffords

Click to expand...

This is all you really need to know to know it’s a bad law!

hso said:

legislation to hold accountable online gun marketplaces that allow illegal gun sales to be conducted on their platforms. The Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act would ensure that websites like Armslist no longer enjoy blanket immunity under Section 230

Click to expand...

but yeah it’s not good but not actually the killer blow that anti gunners would hope for. Section 230 is the neutral platform provision of the communications decency act. What it would do is make the platform responsible for content it’s users post. While this would be absolutely killer for a site like YouTube or Twitter, with aggressive moderation surviving without it would still be possible for sites like armslist or gun broker. In fact I think this would put THR or AR15.com at far greater risk than the actual marketplaces.

that all said we need to stop this as it is wrong and just another attempt to slowly chip away at our rights.

AJC1 said:

I watched a video on this event and I was curious how a good constitutional lawyer would no be able to get the unbalanced application of the same law throw out. Equal protection under the law and all. Picking winners and losers by manipulating statutes is slimy lawyer crap, and I hate it.

Click to expand...

Unequal/selective application of the law is a hallmark of tyranny. I read that somewhere. I think it was right after I wrote it maybe.

Facebook and Youtube have been busy here lately deleting gun related groups and videos form their platforms. It seems both have a hard-on for Marine Gun Builder who does a lot of content on 80% pistols. Facebook deleted his personal MGB account last year and they recently deleted at least one or more of the Facebook groups. And Youtube has deleted 50% or more of his videos.

And that is just one example. This is definitely a culture war being waged against the Second Amendment.

Using their logic, Amazon should be shut down because of all the counterfeit merchandise that is being sold through it.

In reality this is a first amendment issue. Section 230 actually protects whatever forum from being liable for what posters say. It is meant to allow individuals to block or screen materials they don't want children to see not the forum moderators.


Support Us!

• About LII
• Get the law
• Lawyer directory
• Legal encyclopedia
• Help out

1. LII
2. U.S. Code
3. Title 47
4. CHAPTER 5
5. SUBCHAPTER II
6. Part I
7. § 230

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1)
The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)
These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)
The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)
Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
United States—
(1)
to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)
to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)
to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)
to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

(5) No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)
any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)
any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f) DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1) Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3) Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)
filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)
pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)
transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L. 115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)