Intellectual Property Law

Section 230

By Susan Crawford

“Inevitably, when millions of people are speaking, some of that speech will be objectionable.”

Broad Section 230 immunity is under siege, but it’s useful to remember that this statute has been very helpful to have around:

Broad Section 230(c) immunity fosters freedom of speech and the development of the Internet. Without broad immunity, interactive computer services would lack the freedom to structure their websites in any way they want and to solicit and encourage user-generated content. They would run a high risk of being treated as publishers of objectionable third-party content and face liability for it. Broad immunity has allowed the flexibility for the eBays, Amazons, MySpaces, and blogs of the world to create unique sites that encourage the sharing and development of content, information, and speech by their users.

(From a recent CDT/EFF amicus brief.)

This statute might have application to the net neutrality battle as well - after all, it mandates that internet access providers (”interactive computer service” - defined to include any system that provides access to the internet) not be treated as “the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”  So the netops can’t claim to be “speakers” of internet communications.  Congress has made clear that they aren’t.

Full post as published by Susan Crawford Blog on April 02, 2008 (boomark / email).