Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Will Not Examine Tech Industry Legal Shield (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader shares a Reuters report: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court's decision that an online advertising site accused by three young women of facilitating child sex trafficking was protected by a federal law that has shielded website operators from liability for content posted by others. The refusal by the justices to take up the women's appeal in the case involving the advertising website Backpage.com marked a victory for the tech industry, which could have faced far-reaching consequences had the Supreme Court decided to limit the scope of the Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1996 to protect free speech on the internet.
It was written to DENY free speech -- specifically porn.
It just had to have the happy side effect that, after the porn ban was ruled unconstitutional, the "safe harbor' provision stayed in effect.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Of course they are.
The real complaint here is that "tech companies" are getting all the protections of being common carriers without any of the responsibilities of being common carriers. So they're not liable for ads posted for criminal services, but they can cancel ads that conflict with their own political agenda.
SCOTUS made the correct decision in this case. One can only presumed these women sued Backapages because their pimps - who actually forced them into prostitution - didn't have any more.
The in the case question is whether web sites (including Slashdot) are responsible for the content of posts by their users. If so, Slashdot, Backpage, and every other web site where people can talk would need a team of censors.
Child porn is illegal, slander is illegal, threatening people is illegal - if web sites are responsible for the posts, Slashdot would need to make sure no posts might be considered slander, or an unlawful threat. It just doesn't make any sense to say "the web site is liable if a user posts something that a jury considers child porn, but not liable for any other unlawful posts".
The remedies are already in place. Suppose someone posts on Slashdot advertising a human trafficking operation. If Slashdot were liable for user comments, Slashdot would immediately be guilty of abetting said operation. Of course, the site isn't liable so they're not immediately at risk of a lawsuit over the situation. The proper response is to report the comment and Slashdot either takes it down (and thus shields themselves from liability) or decides to leave it up (in which case, they might expose themselves to liability). Alternatively, the authorities could subpoena Slashdot (through proper legal channels) to get information on the person who made the post.
With this system in place, sites can host user-generated content without hiring armies of human (as opposed to automated) moderators. (Imagine how many moderators YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook would need to hire just to keep up with the flood of content!) Meanwhile, it also allows for illegal comments to be removed - something that any site worth its salt wants to ensure anyway if only to keep the spam out.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
And so long as sex offender charges are handed out for similarly ridiculous situations do you really think it is fair to have everyone who has been charged with such an offense branded a sex offender, posted in a publicly accessible online database, and as people in said database grouped categorically and viewed as "child molesters" by the general public.
Dear APK,
There is a reason you were downmodded into oblivion on your main account.
It has nothing to do with a conspiracy against you. You are simply obnoxious. You also oversimplify and strawman the arguments of others.
This is why you are not respected and everyone rolls their eyes when they come across your posts.
Sincerely,
Almost Everyone On Slashdot
The RIAA and MAPP are very strong lobbies. Laws are different depending on the amount of money in the industry backing/opposing them.
ok, got it. thanks military industrial complex. i was wondering which sort of websites you were going to try to shut down, now i know i guess.
Of the two of you, only one (raymorris) has posted with a valid identity. Further, his post is not concealed or obfuscated in any way I can determine. Thus, 'talking behind others' backs' is not a valid allegation.
Of your two remaining complaints I can only ask this - what possible relevance to the current thread does this have? Also, how does your continuous use of ad hominem attacks add to or enhance conversation on the subject of the US Supreme Court's recent decision to not render an opinion or judgement in this case?
I have posted inappropriate things in the past, even here at Slashdot. I have also recanted of those errors and apologized as publicly as those offending posts were made. You still seem intent upon posting inappropriately here on Slashdot (sufficiently so to be banned, evidently). This is evidence that you haven't grown up. You should grow up, so that you can make a living in the IT industry. Hell, I'll bet you could even grow up to be a programmer someday . . . but you have to grow up first, something which the evidence here indicates is highly unlikely.
Is that why you can't sue me for libel (as you've often threatened to do)? I'd begun to wonder after I ensured that you have current and correct contact information with which to serve me a process or subpoena - now I'm beginning to suspect the reason for no libel suit is that you're a minor child and have no legal standing to bring suit of any sort. If psychiatric help is not available for whatever it is you have, perhaps maturing will correct the problem.
In closing, let me point out that Everyone Loves Raymond - but nobody loves a bloated, spray-painted orange mess that only knows how to be dishonest, antagonistic, bellicose and insulting. Until you learn this, please stick to Twitter.