All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit in Section 230 Case
I dislike the politics here, but this news interests me enough to share. The Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit in that Section 230 case against Google. Most people seem to call it "Section 230" these days, but I think of it under the older term, "Safe Harbor Provision".
Basically Section 230 says that internet platforms are not legally liable for the content that users post on their platforms. That would apply to social media and other sites like Twitter, Facebook, LowEndTalk, etc. The user who posted the content may be liable, but not the platform itself.
The ruling tosses out the lawsuit but says nothing about the constitutionality of the Section 230 provision in the law. That question may come before the Supreme Court in the future.
There are many flavors of free speech advocates here on LowEndTalk. In general, I do not engage in online political discussions. If this thread goes off into the weeds with people abusing each other as they usually do on LowEndTalk, do not blame me. I claim Safe Harbor under Section 230. :-)
I am not expressing an opinion about this ruling, but merely sharing the news. Many articles are only a quick internet search away, but here are links to get you started:
Comments
I dislike politics here too (or rather, how it often devolves into insults, abuse, and illogical ramblings), but this is a welcome post IMO, and a relevant topic for the forum, as it impacts related issues with the folks here. Thanks for posting it.
As for this case, I'd just say to keep in mind that the court said, "We therefore decline to address the application of Section 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief...” so it's not really a big WIN for Google, etc... it's just the wrong case and wrong circumstances to tackle the broader legal issues. This battle will no doubt resurface with another case where the situation shows a tighter correlation of Section 230 to the losses incurred by a party, not to mention what's happening with draft legislation that is already circulating. So in this case, I don't think it signals anything about how Section 230 will really play out in the future.
This case aside, as you probably know, even Facebook has called for regulation/oversight, so the big question in the near future will be who writes the new laws that will be passed. And currently, big tech lobbyists have a lot to say in those drafts, and that should worry people more than this case.
Cheers!
The Supremes are masters of non-commital. They always rule as narrowly as possible and do everything possible to avoid ruling at all. Typically it's only when different appeals courts disagree and they have no choice.
... but at least we can appreciate their music. :-)
And that is how it is supposed to be. A blatantly unconstitutional ruling should be thrown out at every appeal and only seriously controversial constitutional cases should end up before the SCOTUS. And when I say controversial, I do not mean regarding politics, but the true nature of the common law and the constitutional law, i.e. where it is not immediately clear what the law says in some particular case and whether that provision is constitutional or not.
Maybe, but it seems to me like SCOTUS operates on the Vatican principle: say as little as possible so as to never make a mistake, wait a century or two if unclear.
I hate common law systems. There's no certainty. Lawyers love it, though.