This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Section 230 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
FYI - I'm currently working on a major overhaul of the Zeran v. AOL article so it's no longer a stub. I don't have time right now to work on this article too, but I thought I would mention it here, in case anybody wants to pull material from that article and post it here as a summary. From what I understand Z v. A is very important to Section 230. That material should be posted by the end of today (pacific time).
Can we have links to versions of this law in other countries? I would add them if I knew what they were. I'm particularly interested in the state of things in Britain. A5 11:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC and Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Associates distinguish that the 230 Defense applies only to tort liability.
The suit brought against Craigslist does not plead liability under a tort, but instead under civil rights violations enforced under the FHA. This seems like another opportunity for the court to distinguish the overbroad language of section 230 as a non-defense under the FHA.
Begging to differ with the comment that the Craigslist FHA case doesn't plead liability under a tort, note that federal civil rights claims are treated as tort claims, or at least analogized to tort claims, for statute of limitations purposes, as an "injury to personal rights." Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/261/case.html. 71.65.205.89 14:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)MerileeNC
Could someone help with formating & citation for Barret v. Rosenthal? I am wiped out, but at least got it added here. It's a CA Supreme Court case pubilshed last month, on Section 230. Thank you! Jance 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this self reference really needed? Is Wikipedia actually such a significant part of the subject of section 230 that it justifies our preference no the mention ourselves in articles? Now if Wikipedia was a major part of the subject I could see it, but there must be hundreds of other examples we can use. I suggest the section be removed, you don't see other encyclopedias slipping in mentions of themselves when the subject crosses paths with them. 1 != 2 14:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I plan on editing this page over the next few weeks in connection with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cyberlaw -- Boalt2761 ( talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Not only is the titling of the page incorrect, but the page should also probably discuss 230(c)(2), which doesn't have as many cases interpreting it but is an important part of the immunity. Ericgoldman ( talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This whole page needs revamping, but the three tiers of liability described by Madeleine Rodriguez's article is misleading at best. I propose ripping out the entire discussion of her article, which is more harmful than helpful. Ericgoldman ( talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I added information under the social media section dealing with the issues of alleged deplatforming and discrimination of conservatives by some of the major social media providers. Congressmen in both houses are talking about this and authoring legislation, it is a topic in several media outlets as well as at the White House. This should be covered in the article. Progressingamerica ( talk) 20:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I came here looking to see (1) where the line was, (2) what the Republicans thought, and (3) what the Democrats thought. I quickly found all three. Thanks for helping me quickly understand the issue WP contributors! -- 199.90.157.4 ( talk) 12:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I recently made a set of edits that attempted to address misconceptions with the title of the statute. Section 230 is part of the Communications Act of 1934, and is properly referenced as Section 9 of the Communications Decency Act or Section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" is a non-sequitur (the CDA has only 9 sections). This is explained at length here: [1]. @ Masem: can you please review and reconsider your reversions? BlakeEReid ( talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone think that too much of the article is spent describing the EARN IT Act and Trump's EO? Trump's EO has been rescinded and was unenforceable to begin with, and the EARN IT act was unconstitutional in its original form and completely advisory in its updated form. Both were offered for political notoriety as opposed to efforts for real reform. In contrast, the PACT act is a substantive bill that addresses many of the concerns about 230 immunity. I think the two proposals that were purely political and without any effect take up too much space compared to the legitimate proposals that address section 230 issues.-- ALR Student ( talk) 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against online discussion platforms in the early 1990s" - Someone made this change after contesting my argument that Section 230 was originally passed to protect ISPs. I still believe that the ISP explanation that was there previously is correct. An editor might want to consider whether this change was valid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonl ( talk • contribs)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Section 230 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
FYI - I'm currently working on a major overhaul of the Zeran v. AOL article so it's no longer a stub. I don't have time right now to work on this article too, but I thought I would mention it here, in case anybody wants to pull material from that article and post it here as a summary. From what I understand Z v. A is very important to Section 230. That material should be posted by the end of today (pacific time).
Can we have links to versions of this law in other countries? I would add them if I knew what they were. I'm particularly interested in the state of things in Britain. A5 11:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC and Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Associates distinguish that the 230 Defense applies only to tort liability.
The suit brought against Craigslist does not plead liability under a tort, but instead under civil rights violations enforced under the FHA. This seems like another opportunity for the court to distinguish the overbroad language of section 230 as a non-defense under the FHA.
Begging to differ with the comment that the Craigslist FHA case doesn't plead liability under a tort, note that federal civil rights claims are treated as tort claims, or at least analogized to tort claims, for statute of limitations purposes, as an "injury to personal rights." Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/261/case.html. 71.65.205.89 14:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)MerileeNC
Could someone help with formating & citation for Barret v. Rosenthal? I am wiped out, but at least got it added here. It's a CA Supreme Court case pubilshed last month, on Section 230. Thank you! Jance 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this self reference really needed? Is Wikipedia actually such a significant part of the subject of section 230 that it justifies our preference no the mention ourselves in articles? Now if Wikipedia was a major part of the subject I could see it, but there must be hundreds of other examples we can use. I suggest the section be removed, you don't see other encyclopedias slipping in mentions of themselves when the subject crosses paths with them. 1 != 2 14:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I plan on editing this page over the next few weeks in connection with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cyberlaw -- Boalt2761 ( talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Not only is the titling of the page incorrect, but the page should also probably discuss 230(c)(2), which doesn't have as many cases interpreting it but is an important part of the immunity. Ericgoldman ( talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This whole page needs revamping, but the three tiers of liability described by Madeleine Rodriguez's article is misleading at best. I propose ripping out the entire discussion of her article, which is more harmful than helpful. Ericgoldman ( talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I added information under the social media section dealing with the issues of alleged deplatforming and discrimination of conservatives by some of the major social media providers. Congressmen in both houses are talking about this and authoring legislation, it is a topic in several media outlets as well as at the White House. This should be covered in the article. Progressingamerica ( talk) 20:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I came here looking to see (1) where the line was, (2) what the Republicans thought, and (3) what the Democrats thought. I quickly found all three. Thanks for helping me quickly understand the issue WP contributors! -- 199.90.157.4 ( talk) 12:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I recently made a set of edits that attempted to address misconceptions with the title of the statute. Section 230 is part of the Communications Act of 1934, and is properly referenced as Section 9 of the Communications Decency Act or Section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" is a non-sequitur (the CDA has only 9 sections). This is explained at length here: [1]. @ Masem: can you please review and reconsider your reversions? BlakeEReid ( talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone think that too much of the article is spent describing the EARN IT Act and Trump's EO? Trump's EO has been rescinded and was unenforceable to begin with, and the EARN IT act was unconstitutional in its original form and completely advisory in its updated form. Both were offered for political notoriety as opposed to efforts for real reform. In contrast, the PACT act is a substantive bill that addresses many of the concerns about 230 immunity. I think the two proposals that were purely political and without any effect take up too much space compared to the legitimate proposals that address section 230 issues.-- ALR Student ( talk) 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Re. "Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against online discussion platforms in the early 1990s" - Someone made this change after contesting my argument that Section 230 was originally passed to protect ISPs. I still believe that the ISP explanation that was there previously is correct. An editor might want to consider whether this change was valid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonl ( talk • contribs)