𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖗𝖚𝖎 𝓓𝓝𝓸𝓠𝓿𝓜𝓞𝓾𝓠8𝓸𝓴𝓼𝓶𝓟𝓩𝓝𝓞 𝕷𝖎:
230条款内容有人介绍么
꧁❀͜͡ঊ͜͡ ✾ꈼꀰꁲꋊꈼꌚꀯꈼꋊꀯꈼ✾ঊ͜͡❀꧂:
就是大科技有豁免權
𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖗𝖚𝖎 𝓓𝓝𝓸𝓠𝓿𝓜𝓞𝓾𝓠8𝓸𝓴𝓼𝓶𝓟𝓩𝓝𝓞 𝕷𝖎:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Wikipedia
provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:
.
Passed at a time where Internet use was just starting to expand in both breadth of services and range of consumers in the United States, Section 230 has frequently been referred as a key law that has allowed the Internet to flourish, often referred to as "The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet"
In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[1]
特朗普签署的行政令指出，如果社交媒体平台编辑用户发布的内容，美国的《通信规范法案》第230条豁免权不适用。行政令要求美国国会立法“删除或更改”第230条。特朗普称，美国司法部长威廉·巴尔（Attorney General William Barr）将“立即”开始制定法律给国会稍后投票。
它还说，包括出于网站服务条款中未提及的其他原因的“欺骗性”删帖行为应该被禁止，这些行为不应被豁免。
美国共和党参议员马尔科·鲁比奥（Marco Rubio）认为社交平台为特定帖子添加事实核查标签时，扮演了“出版者”的角色。
鲁比奥说：“法律仍然保护像推特这样的社交媒体公司，因为它们被认为是论坛而非出版商，但如果他们现在决定像出版商一样扮演编辑角色，就不应再被排除在法律责任之外，不受法律约束。”
推特回应称，该行政令是以“反动和政治化的方法”处理”具有里程碑意义的法律“，并补充称，《通信规范法案》第230条“保护美国的创新和言论自由，并受到民主价值观的支持”。
该行政令虽因推特而起，但也剑指包括脸书和谷歌的YouTube等社交媒体平台。谷歌回应称，这会“损害美国经济及其在互联网自由方面的全球领导地位。”
Prior to the Internet, case law was clear that a liability line was drawn between publishers of content and distributors of content; publishers would be expected to have awareness of material it was publishing and thus should be held liable for any illegal content it published, while distributors would likely not be aware and thus would be immune. This was established in Smith v. California (1959), where the Supreme Court ruled that putting liability on the provider (a book store in this case) would have "a collateral effect of inhibiting the freedom of expression, by making the individual the more reluctant to exercise it."[9]
In the early 1990s, the Internet became more widely adopted and created means for users to engage in forums and other user-generated content. While this helped to expand the use of the Internet, it also resulted in a number of legal cases putting service providers at fault for the content generated by its users. This concern was raised by legal challenges against CompuServe and Prodigy, early service providers at this time.[10] CompuServe stated they would not attempt to regulate what users posted on their services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. found that as Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and legally responsible for libel committed by customers.[11][a]
The overall Telecommunications Act, with both Exon's CDA and Cox/Wyden's provision, passed both Houses by near-unanimous votes and signed into law by President Bill Clinton by February 1996.[14] Cox/Wyden's section was codified as Section 230 in Title 47 of the US Code.
Before
Next
230条款内容有人介绍么
꧁❀͜͡ঊ͜͡ ✾ꈼꀰꁲꋊꈼꌚꀯꈼꋊꀯꈼ✾ঊ͜͡❀꧂:
就是大科技有豁免權
𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖗𝖚𝖎 𝓓𝓝𝓸𝓠𝓿𝓜𝓞𝓾𝓠8𝓸𝓴𝓼𝓶𝓟𝓩𝓝𝓞 𝕷𝖎:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Wikipedia
provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:
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.
Passed at a time where Internet use was just starting to expand in both breadth of services and range of consumers in the United States, Section 230 has frequently been referred as a key law that has allowed the Internet to flourish, often referred to as "The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet"
In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:[1]
The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.特朗普签署的行政令指出，如果社交媒体平台编辑用户发布的内容，美国的《通信规范法案》第230条豁免权不适用。行政令要求美国国会立法“删除或更改”第230条。特朗普称，美国司法部长威廉·巴尔（Attorney General William Barr）将“立即”开始制定法律给国会稍后投票。
它还说，包括出于网站服务条款中未提及的其他原因的“欺骗性”删帖行为应该被禁止，这些行为不应被豁免。
美国共和党参议员马尔科·鲁比奥（Marco Rubio）认为社交平台为特定帖子添加事实核查标签时，扮演了“出版者”的角色。
鲁比奥说：“法律仍然保护像推特这样的社交媒体公司，因为它们被认为是论坛而非出版商，但如果他们现在决定像出版商一样扮演编辑角色，就不应再被排除在法律责任之外，不受法律约束。”
推特回应称，该行政令是以“反动和政治化的方法”处理”具有里程碑意义的法律“，并补充称，《通信规范法案》第230条“保护美国的创新和言论自由，并受到民主价值观的支持”。
该行政令虽因推特而起，但也剑指包括脸书和谷歌的YouTube等社交媒体平台。谷歌回应称，这会“损害美国经济及其在互联网自由方面的全球领导地位。”
Prior to the Internet, case law was clear that a liability line was drawn between publishers of content and distributors of content; publishers would be expected to have awareness of material it was publishing and thus should be held liable for any illegal content it published, while distributors would likely not be aware and thus would be immune. This was established in Smith v. California (1959), where the Supreme Court ruled that putting liability on the provider (a book store in this case) would have "a collateral effect of inhibiting the freedom of expression, by making the individual the more reluctant to exercise it."[9]
In the early 1990s, the Internet became more widely adopted and created means for users to engage in forums and other user-generated content. While this helped to expand the use of the Internet, it also resulted in a number of legal cases putting service providers at fault for the content generated by its users. This concern was raised by legal challenges against CompuServe and Prodigy, early service providers at this time.[10] CompuServe stated they would not attempt to regulate what users posted on their services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. found that as Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and legally responsible for libel committed by customers.[11][a]
The overall Telecommunications Act, with both Exon's CDA and Cox/Wyden's provision, passed both Houses by near-unanimous votes and signed into law by President Bill Clinton by February 1996.[14] Cox/Wyden's section was codified as Section 230 in Title 47 of the US Code.
Before
Next
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment