Editor,
A recent letter criticizing social media for “censorship” misinterprets both the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Editor,
A recent letter criticizing social media for “censorship” misinterprets both the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
The First Amendment forbids government censorship, not private-sector censorship. In fact, it grants private-sector companies the freedom to choose which material to publish or not to publish. Otherwise, the Daily Journal would be required to publish this letter or anything else I write.
Section 230 is even more misunderstood. It grants websites legal immunity for third-party content (such as Facebook posts) and preserves their freedom to moderate it. Only the content contributor is legally responsible for any libel or slander.
Even without Section 230, the First Amendment gives private-sector companies the freedom to control what they publish. In my view, the main flaw of 230 is that it unfairly makes different rules for internet media versus print and broadcast media. If my Facebook post libels someone, Facebook isn’t legally responsible. But if my Daily Journal letter libels someone, that person can hold both me and the newspaper responsible.
Tom R. Halfhill
Burlingame
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(5) comments
Mr. Halfhill,
I have not done any research into section 230 but I am sure you and other readers have. The mention of the flaw between internet media and print media tells me that maybe the reason is what it was designed for. In 1996 there were no mega companies like Google and Facebook on the internet, if I recall it was mainly geared to email and communications. There were no instant video transmissions on smart phones, etc. If the law was written without the knowledge of what could be done in the future, perhaps that is the flaw. Although many on the right will disagree, the founding fathers did not anticipate IED's, RPG's, or high capacity automatic weapons in their idea of keep and bear arms.
Nice observation on 230, Taffy. As for your dig at many on the right, how many folks do you know actually have IED’s, RPG’s or high capacity automatic weapons? I know I don't need to tell you this, but I’m one on the right, and even I don’t have IED’s, RPG’s or high capacity automatic weapons (depending upon your definition of high capacity). Although if they’re legal… I still have some Biden bucks.
Mr. Halfhill, thanks for highlighting a contrast. Those that are currently riding the winds of change can easily be paddling against the wind in a very short time.
Google, FB, etc. are monopolistic common carriers as defined in 47 U.S. Code Part I. As such they must give equal time to political speech. This will likely be tested all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The question I have is why you support the "thought police" and are against free speech?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.