For anyone who expects Washington to allow the next generation of start-ups to benefit from the same rules that enabled the creation of American social media giants – and also to allow these giants to face the consequences of becoming America’s new ideological censors – it can there is a good test case available.
Confused politicians want to eliminate a clause in the federal law known as Section 230 because they mistakenly believe it has provided Silicon Valley giants with an all-purpose protective shield. But it does not protect them from the consequences of mistaken decisions to become the new arbiter of America’s public discussions.
The law allows “interactive computer services” to make good faith efforts to block obscene, violent or objectionable material posted by users without being treated as editors. all material generated by the user and, therefore, responsible for its content. The law does not protect these services when they stop being mere providers of communication platforms and start to assume the role of publishers.
Eliminating the law would transfer wealth from technology shareholders to legal attorneys. This would also prevent the creation of new rivals for social media titans. A better solution is to require judges to interpret the law as written and to allow claimants to perform cashectomies on Silicon Valley companies if they publish defamatory content.
Best-selling author Candace Owens may want to explore the limits of Section 230 after this week’s online confusion with rapper Cardi B.
Alex Heigl notes in the New York Post:
A common Twitter dispute between Cardi B and Candace Owens late on Tuesday ended with Owens claiming that he plans to sue Cardi for posting a digitally altered tweet suggesting that Owens’ husband cheated on her with his brother.
Ms. Owens says the claim is false and that Ms. B is circulating a photoshop fake. If this is correct, the rapper will be responsible for defamation. Ms. B says she will sue Ms. Owens for claiming that the tweet was photoshopped. Perhaps, eventually, both will have their days in court and be free to present defenses like everyone else.
If Cardi B’s tweet were photoshopped, the fact that the popular Mrs. Owens is a well-known public figure would probably not give Ms. B any extra legal protection. Since Cardi B’s tweet clearly appears to be intended to humiliate Mrs. Owens, if the statement posted on Twitter is fabricated, then this example appears to meet the high standard of “real malice”.
If Ms. Owens has a good case, she may want to consider suing not only Cardi B, but Twitter as well. An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously concluded that a website can be both a service provider and a content provider, even if it plays only one role in creating or developing content. In other words, Twitter can be considered both a platform and an editor under the law.
On the general subject of Candace Owens, Twitter seems to have made some edits. Owens reported last year that the site blocked his tweet encouraging Michiganders to challenge blocking orders issued by the state’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer.
As for Cardi B, Twitter did not choose to simply block its content, which some users may find questionable. Instead, your Twitter account carries a warning that “it may include potentially sensitive content”. Some may see this as a title that describes the published material. Was it entirely Cardi B’s idea and initiative to label your content that way, or does Twitter play a role in applying and maintaining the label? Has Twitter monitored or examined your content in any way?
Twitter claims that it is not an editor, but simply the distributor of information posted by third parties.
A lawsuit can help clarify the responsibilities of media service providers, speakers and editors on social media.
***
Extra credit for tests on abolition of obstruction?
Many colleges responded to Covid by dramatically reducing the role of standardized tests in this year’s admission process. This requires admission officers to make more subjective judgments than usual. Given the political orientation of the average college admissions officer, we can only guess the results. Melissa Korn and Douglas Belkin’s report from The Journal:
Ivy League schools and a number of other highly selective institutions have waived the SAT and ACT requirements for the 2025 class, resulting in an unprecedented flood of enrollments and what can prove to be the most chaotic selection experiment in American higher education since the end of World War II. ..
Interviews with college admissions officials and counselors from public and private schools point to an epic behind-the-scenes effort to make difficult judgments at the highest speed.
***
In other news
Let the children learn
“Florida Schools Reopened Without Becoming Covid-19 Superspreaders,” The Wall Street Journal, March 17
Joe Biden, for example
“Covid-19 Vaccines Reach the Most Remote Americans,” The Wall Street Journal, March 17
***
Mr. Freeman is co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival”.
***
Follow James Freeman at Twitter and Parler.
Sign the Best of the Web email.
To suggest items, send an email to [email protected].
(Teresa Vozzo helps compile the Best of the Web.)
***
Copyright © 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8