proposed “proper” CDA amendment
Section 230 is not necessarily broken. The law is far too vague and it simply needs to be refined in order to guide the courts to properly comport with the legislative purpose and policy intended for Section 230.
These are my proposed changes…
(C) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker (OMISSION)
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the primary publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability (ANY ACTION)
No provider or user of an 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…
Two diametrically opposed 9th Circuit decisions that can neither coexist nor be lawfully reconciled.
Most, if not almost all courts, have relied on “questionable precedent” when considering Section 230 immunity. Courts have consistently rendered inconsistent decisions that are both legally and logically inappropriate, the Fyk vs. Facebook decision being one of them. Specifically, Section 230 DOES NOT in fact, “protect[] from liability any activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online” (per 9th Circuit). More specifically Section 230(c)(1) DOES NOT immunize ANY or ALL editorial decisions without regard for…
Justice Thomas welcomed an appropriate case to properly interpret the CDA section 230, and my case should be that case.
Some say Section 230 (c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, (“CDA”) gave us the twenty-six words that created the Internet, but “the right to free speech” would be the foundation upon which the Internet was built. Subsection (c)(1) tells us that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” …
Jason M Fyk
Social Media Freedom Advocate. In 2018 Fyk sued Facebook. California courts got it wrong. Now, Fyk is heading to the Supreme Court to fix section 230
