Even without the protection of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act
, it would be absurd under our First Amendment protections to call for legal damages against the publisher or host website of any kind of press coverage, political writings or videos.
Indecency, Why the Communications Decency Act
, and the Judicial
A: The Communications Decency Act
was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but it was a really shocking attempt to regulate this emergent technology.
Should Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
give online sites greater legal protection than dead-tree cousins?
By the mid-'90s, members of Congress were panicked enough about kids' ability to access a wide world of racy online content that they approved the Communications Decency Act
Since complaint websites are federally by the Communications Decency Act
of 1996, companies cannot legally force complaint websites to remove complaints.
Likewise, even progressive Democrats have been almost unanimous in backing such egregious violations of basic liberties as the 1996 Communications Decency Act
(even Justice Stevens couldn't stomach that one) and the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act.
Although the Communications Decency Act
gives immunity to Internet service providers in cases like this, that protection doesn't exist in Europe.
Internet and social media companies generally enjoy broad immunity from legal liability under the Communications Decency Act
of 1996 but the act has its limits and individuals continue to test them with lawsuits in this evolving area.
Web sites such as Craigslist are not held to the same standard, however, because of an interpretation of the Communications Decency Act
that determined interactive Internet providers are not publishers.
In the final Note, Katy Noeth analyzes [section] 230 of the Communications Decency Act
, the seminal case of Zeran v.
com is not immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act
(CDA) because it required users to input discriminatory content when seeking housing on the site.