You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] synthesizerToady 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The first amendment isn't free speech. Nor should it's protections be interpreted as the absolute limit of what ought to be protected. Either you believe free speech is valuable, and it should be protected from all malicious entities government or corporation. or you don't and the first amendment ought to be abolished.

[–] RevDrStrangelove 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah, you, specifically, REALLY need to read the 1st Amendment.

[–] dismyassholeaccount 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Seems you need to read 230 protections, because removing 230 protections is not a threat to free speech, it's attributing the content of the site to the individual who posted it, instead of the site that hosts that content.

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability
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, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

TLDR. If someone posts child porn to facebook, facebook is not charged with a crime as long as they review and delete it in an appropriate amount of time.