Read on Twitter
There's so much obviously wrong here, and it's sad that someone who actually knows better would spread this garbage.
NYT is liable when it commissions and publishes an op-ed. It is not liable if someone posted an identical op-ed in its unedited comments section. That's § 230. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093
NYT is liable when it commissions and publishes an op-ed. It is not liable if someone posted an identical op-ed in its unedited comments section. That's § 230. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093
Sen. Cruz is not an idiot, and he knows this, but he's gotta keep sniffing that Trump taint so he can keep his senate seat. Sad!
Among many errors here is Sen. Cruz's assertion that NYT is "neutral" and therefore protected by CDA § 230.
(1) NYT is not neutral, wtf!?!
(2) CDA § 230 liability protection is not dependent on neutrality. You could find this out by, y'know, reading the short text of the law. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093
(1) NYT is not neutral, wtf!?!
(2) CDA § 230 liability protection is not dependent on neutrality. You could find this out by, y'know, reading the short text of the law. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093
The idea that § 230 was animated by a "spirit" of neutrality by tech companies is a-textual and a-historical.
Congress recognized that tort-based liability to internet providers and websites for the speech of third parties would stifle speech the internet. That's it.
Congress recognized that tort-based liability to internet providers and websites for the speech of third parties would stifle speech the internet. That's it.
The claim that there was a grand bargain between tech giants and the fed. gov't that websites would be politically neutral is a fantasy. It did not happen that way.
(Also, even the suggestion is heinously anti-free speech.)
(Also, even the suggestion is heinously anti-free speech.)
I'm going to blow your mind here and suggest that rather than make up a fantasy about tech bargaining for neutrality, we can turn to the text of the statute to determine what Congress was up to when it created § 230.
Note: liability protection is not contingent on neutrality.
Note: liability protection is not contingent on neutrality.
This, of course, is obvious. I'm liable for what I put on my website—even if I'm political af.
I'm not liable for what other people put on my website—even if I'm political af.
This is how speech flourishes on the internet.
I'm not liable for what other people put on my website—even if I'm political af.
This is how speech flourishes on the internet.
Put another way, if I have a blog, and I have open comments, CDA § 230 means, generally, that I can't be held liable for my commenters' posts.
It doesn't mean that my blog has to be nonpartisan and a-political! A law like that would violate my First Amendment rights.
It doesn't mean that my blog has to be nonpartisan and a-political! A law like that would violate my First Amendment rights.
