msk.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Completely wrong: legally and philosophically by MobyDisk · 2018-08-23 13:47 · Score: 2 · on The Consequences of Indecency (techcrunch.com)

Wyden is is lying about what the CDA is designed to do.

Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory.

Civil libertarians have waiting 20 years for this shoe to drop. Back when the CDA was being debated we predicted that this is *EXACTLY* what would happen. It was never meant to protect freedom of speech. Stop pretending it was. The Communications Decency Act was passed with the goal of protecting minors from online exposure to indecent material.

This law was a legal bait-and-switch setup. Step 1: Pass a law that mirrors something the constitution already guarantees. Step 2: Claim that the protection is statutory not constitutional. Step 3: Remove or amend the law and now you can claim that you can regulate that thing.

I want them to get rid of the CDA because this was never something congress should have had the power to legislate. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram - none of them are liable for what their users post any more than the owner of a building is liable for the graffiti that is placed on it, or the newspaper is liable for the opinions in the letters to the editor. This is a cornerstone of democracy.

You can't reasonably argue that the 1st amendment prevents congress from passing law that inhibits freedom of speech, but also claim that manufacturers of pens are liable for the speech, or manufacturers of loudspeakers are liable for the sounds that come out of them, or web site hosts are responsible for what people post on them, or bulletin boards are responsible for the notes people tack onto them, or that telephone companies liable for the content of calls people make, etc.

Remember that the CDA set the legal stage for the DMCA, which is what makes it possible for the RIAA and MPAA to start using ISPs as copyright police. With the DMCA, these new "statutory protections" that we didn't ever need now had limits. ISPs are now only protected from liability if they cooperate with copyright holders demands, and if they take down "hacking" or circumvention tools.

Wyden is claiming that section 230 is a free-speech clause, but it really isn't. It's called the Commications Decency Act for a reason! They wanted to regulate what is "decent." Section 230 also grants ISPs immunity from liability if they *restrict* someone's free speech. Without section 230, they might be legally liable if they block someone's speech! We are better off without it.

Go ahead, try to stop Americans from cursing online, or posting porn, or posting whatever you want to call "indecent." Does Mr. Wyden really think that is even possible?

Re:donations or environmental friendly scrapping? by anthony_dipierro · 2007-01-20 01:03 · Score: 4, Informative · on Where Does Google's Hardware Go to Die?

Probably they're donating the working hardware to schools or communities. Donations are tax deductible in the US, so they're actually saving money while getting free positive publicity.

Actually, donations of depreciated property are not really deductible, because your deduction is limited to your basis. If the equipment is old, it's already depreciated and has no basis. See http://www.msk.com/csl_files/325861.pdf.

RIAA attorneys by jeh0bu · 2003-07-24 05:14 · Score: 1 · on The RIAA's Hit List Named

FYI - The attorneys filing all of these subpoenas on behalf of the RIAA are Yvette Molinaro and Jim Trilling according to United States District Court for the District of Columbia documents available on PACER.

Re:EMAIL Addresses for MSK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-24 01:06 · Score: 1, Interesting · on The RIAA's Hit List Named

We cannot forget Yvette's email:

yxm@msk.com
Yvette Molinaro

EMAIL Addresses for MSK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-24 00:55 · Score: 1, Interesting · on The RIAA's Hit List Named