Lieberman wants to shut down USMB

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't worry though, it will keep you safe from terrorists.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is not particularly known for his friendliness toward the First Amendment, is at it again. As chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, Lieberman urged Twitter to stop hosting pro-Taliban tweets last fall, in addition to persuading Internet companies to remove blog posts that promote terrorism. It appears he’s now taking the idea one step further by proposing an amendment to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (Source.) Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) grants immunity to Internet Service Providers from being held liable for the comments of third parties to their websites. Basically, it’s what shields review sites like TripAdvisor or Yelp from butthurt business owners holding them liable for disgruntled third parties’ reviews. It is also what allows all of you to say whatever you want in the comments without The Legal Satyricon being taken to task for it (legally).
However, Lieberman’s proposed amendment would change that. The new language reads:

“NoA provider or user of an interactive computer service shall may be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
​

Section 230 Amendment strips websites of immunity from anonymous commenters « The Legal Satyricon

The actual bill is here.

https://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/senate-bill-1.pdf

 

[Toro]

On the upside, I'd probably get more work done and be less wasteful with my time.

 

[Peach]

On the upside, I'd probably get more work done and be less wasteful with my time.

Its a leap from the bill to "shutting down" this Message Board.

 

[Emma]

"The Accountability for Free Discussion act of 2012"

Now that's just ... ironic.

Here's the statute he wants to amend:

47 USC § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On the upside, I'd probably get more work done and be less wasteful with my time.

Its a leap from the bill to "shutting down" this Message Board.

Not if you are a lawyer.

 

[Rocko]

On the upside, I'd probably get more work done and be less wasteful with my time.

Tell me about it!

 

[Peach]

On the upside, I'd probably get more work done and be less wasteful with my time.

Its a leap from the bill to "shutting down" this Message Board.

Not if you are a lawyer.

It is if one is sane.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Never been a fan of Joe.

Actually, the first campaign I worked on was Ned Lamont in 2006.

 

[uscitizen]

It might also impact Rush's web site and others like it?

 

[Emma]

On the upside, I'd probably get more work done and be less wasteful with my time.

Its a leap from the bill to "shutting down" this Message Board.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Anyone who reads this blog knows how I feel about anonymous commenters. People who spew their garbage on the internet from behind masks don't have any motivation to be truthful, much less logical, even less civil. Raising the barriers to entry for online communication would improve online discussions all around; I can do it here, but that's the extent of my influence.


I learned today (h/t Brian Cuban, who's against it) that Senator Joe Lieberman is sponsoring a bill (PDF, via Mcintyre v Ohio) that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to strip web hosts of statutory immunity for the conduct of their commenters. Lieberman is not my favorite legislator, but I think he might have blundered on to something this time. Fashioning a more serviceable internet is a worthy goal; this bill would accomplish that, though that's probably incidental to his goals.


Defending People » Blind-Squirrel Lieberman Finds Acorn

 

[Ernie S.]

Never been a fan of Joe.

Actually, the first campaign I worked on was Ned Lamont in 2006.

Actually Joe is one of 2 Democrats I've ever voted for for anything above local election.

 

[Emma]

The above blogger's comments on anonymity are equally ironic:

When Madison, Hamilton, and Jay wrote The Federalist Papers as Publius, they were not concealing their names to protect themselves; they were maintaining their anonymity so that their logic and rhetoric would stand or fall on its own, independent of the authority of the authors.


Anonymous writings will be credited if their premises are clear and their logic is rigid; the opinion of a known writer will be credited if the writer is credible. But an anonymous writer’s opinion is of no value.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its a leap from the bill to "shutting down" this Message Board.

Not if you are a lawyer.

It is if one is sane.

A criminal defense lawyer comments on the bill.

Sweet. In case you aren't aware. I'm an "information content provider." So are many of you. What this means is that the safe harbor I previously enjoyed for those who post comments here could be gone. Kaput. And if you post a comment that creates liability, whether for copyright, defamation or anything else that the law provides, it's my responsibility.

That's right, Joe says it's my responsibility to police you, and upon my failure to do so, I'm liable.

As much as I appreciate you (yes, even you), it's a bit too much to ask that I take a bullet for you. I'm easily found. I'm totally transparent. I have assets. You are a virtual ghost. Who knows who you are or where you are. Who knows if you are who you say you are or trolling for lulz. Whoever or whatever you are, it's not worth a lawsuit or a judgment.

This law, in essence, spells the end of discussion in the blawgosphere, not to mention pretty much everywhere else on the internet people hang out. I can't imagine any website owner is prepared to suffer liability for the comments of others. It would be insane to do so, and the likelihood of ruination is far too high to ignore.

Simple Justice: Leiberman to Internet: You're Fungus

A District Attorney

According to the blog McIntyre v Ohio, an anonymous blog devoted to promoting anonymous speech, Senator Joe Lieberman has proposed stripping blog hosts of the immunity they currently enjoy from liability for things their blog commenters say.
If legislation like this ever actually passes, I’ll be shutting down comments.
Those who followed the recent smack down of a serial troll at Popehat will no doubt remember that Ken invoked section 230 as the reason I cannot be held responsible for stupid things said by my commenters. I have the finest comment section on the planet, but you can’t prevent idiots from walking in the door if you are going to have open comments. And there are always the Kilgore Trouts of the world, too: people who deliberately plant inflammatory or racist comments on sites to smear the blog proprietors.

http://patterico.com/2012/04/01/66580/

A lawyer that specializes in 1st Amendment issues.

Although Lieberman is touting this amendment as an anti-terrorist effort, this action will have a chilling effect on all forms of Internet speech. Service providers from Comcast to Consumerist may now be treated as publishers to content posted to their websites. This opens up the possibility that review sites and others that rely on third parties for content will be held responsible for those very same deranged, sub-literate contributions. Lieberman’s proposed amendment will have a chilling effect on free speech, as any site that does not want to drown in legal bills likely won’t accept anonymous comments. If you’re a sissy with paper-thin skin or an obsession with “bullying,” rejoice, I suppose.

Section 230 Amendment strips websites of immunity from anonymous commenters « The Legal Satyricon

Call me crazy if you want, but I am going with the actual lawyers over some anonymous poster on a forum.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Never been a fan of Joe.

Actually, the first campaign I worked on was Ned Lamont in 2006.

Actually Joe is one of 2 Democrats I've ever voted for for anything above local election.

To me, Joe Lieberman represents everything that I hate about Democrats. He's a nanny-state, "for their own good" sort.

 

[BreezeWood]

"Accountability for free Discussion" Act of 2012

Accountable to who ???

 

[uscitizen]

I thought Joe was an independent?

 

[Emma]

"Accountability for free Discussion" Act of 2012

Accountable to who ???

Indeed.

 

[Emma]

I thought Joe was an independent?

Pretty sad that neither party wants him

 

[Peach]

I thought Joe was an independent?

Pretty sad that neither party wants him

Sancto might join him if he promises to eliminate sexual content.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Screw him!
You mean FREEDOM on USMB is not already censored?
Then why do my post like poof away?
Maybe a mod’er should clear things up?