Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the case of The New York Times, the paper issued a correction to affirm that the First Amendment protected hate speech, and not Section 230. [78] [79] [80] Members of Congress have indicated they may pass a law that changes how Section 230 would apply to hate speech as to make tech companies liable for this.
Any change to Section 230 is likely to have ripple effects on online speech around the globe. “The rest of the world is cracking down on the internet even faster than the U.S.,” Goldman said.
The former secretary of state's comments are a reminder that this vital protection for free speech is far from safe, even if we seem to be on the other side of peak anti-230 politics. Why ...
The legal shield known as Section 230 launched Big Tech and was largely unchallenged in the Supreme Court — until now. Supreme Court for first time casts doubt on Section 230, the legal shield ...
Section 230 Most Protects Small Fry, Not Big Tech ... "The First Amendment—not Section 230—is the basis for our free-speech protections in the U.S.," insist Pallone and Rodgers as they peddle ...
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v.Paxton, 603 U.S. 707 (2024), were United States Supreme Court cases related to protected speech under the First Amendment and content moderation by interactive service providers on the Internet under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Supporters of Section 230 say that it protects individuals’ right to express themselves freely on the internet. Meanwhile, critics of the provision say it shields Big Tech companies from any ...
Section 230 offers clarity as to who is responsible for specific online speech by stating that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or ...