Comments on: Is Wikileaks Protected by Section 230? The Trump Campaign Thinks So

By: David S. Gingras

David S. Gingras — Sat, 28 Oct 2017 17:27:00 +0000

Re: this comment: “The traditional scienter requirements for defamation should be adequate immunity, particularly when combined with modern anti-SLAPP laws.”

It’s amazing that you managed to earn TWO strikes with a single bad pitch.

STRIKE 1 — The idea that the “traditional scienter requirement for defamation should be adequate immunity”. HUH? I don’t know if you are a lawyer, but no one who understands defamation law would say this. First, there is NO scienter requirement for publishers; they are essentially strictly liable for ANYTHING they publish. Yeah, there is still (technically) a First Amendment requirement to show negligence, but trust me — that is a meaningless standard. The true state of the law is that if a defendant is found to qualify as a publisher, they are 100% strictly liable for ANYTHING published on their site. Trust me — that’s been the standard used by the courts in every defamation case I’ve defended (which is a LOT).

STRIKE 2 — The idea that “modern anti-SLAPP laws” are a sufficient substitute for Section 230. Again, HUH? WHAT?

First, in most cases, when they exist at all, anti-SLAPP laws normally only apply when the speech qualifies as a matter of public interest or public concern. That means that any personal disputes between two non-public figures are generally never subject to an anti-SLAPP motion, even assuming the jurisdiction in question has a law on the books.

Of course, there is no national anti-SLAPP law, and many states don’t have any version of an anti-SLAPP law at all. Others do have them, but they are often limited in scope.

The real problem with eliminating Section 230 is that you assume there are other safeguards in place that offer sufficient protection to website owners (i.e., Rule 11, anti-SLAPP laws, traditional scienter requirements for defamation claims). That’s beyond naive — it’s like saying that banks don’t need vaults to protect their money because the honor system is good enough to stop people from stealing.

By: NoBS NoSpam

NoBS NoSpam — Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:16:00 +0000

Whistle Blowers are how government corruption is exposed.
National Security laws is how whistle blowers are silenced.

Fix whistle blowers from retaliatory attacks and it works. Our enemies have useful idiots to Doxx whistle blowers so they don’t even need to Seth Rich anyone. Get the locals to do the dirty work. Smart, eh?

By: Arbed

Arbed — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:08:00 +0000

In reply to Maurice Ross.

“they must adopt policies for their lawful use, including, for example,
that account holders must be verified and unaffiliated with foreign
governments or foreign agents”

Who gets to define who is a “foreign agent”, and “foreign” to which country?

Perhaps you mean to suggest that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc should be forced to restrict their operations to the US only?

By: Maurice Ross

Maurice Ross — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:57:00 +0000

Hard cases make bad law. And overbroad laws such as Section 230 make hard cases. I am fully aware of the differences between internet platforms and traditional publishers, but I have changed my mind about Section 230. It has to go, in its entirety. Social media publishers should have no more immunity than newspapers which encourage publications of letters to the editors. The traditional scienter requirements for defamation should be adequate immunity, particularly when combined with modern anti-SLAPP laws. But publishers should be held responsible when they know or are reckless in failing to know that content posted on their web-sites is defamatory or violates intellectual property laws, or rights to privacy. Likewise, social media publishers should be held responsible if they accept advertisements from foreign governments who illegally try to interfere with US elections. And social media publishers should be responsible for assuring that their platforms are not subverted by foreign authorities who set up phony “bot” accounts for the dissemination of false and defamatory information as part of a conspiracy to subvert democracy. This does not require social media web platforms to become censors, but they must adopt policies for their lawful use, including, for example, that account holders must be verified and unaffiliated with foreign governments or foreign agents. Elimination of Section 230 won’t kill the internet, but it will restore the balance that should exist in the legal system, where entities such as Facebook that are worth billions because of their market domination must behave responsibly.

By: rnsr4Trump

rnsr4Trump — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:28:00 +0000

Wow! I would agree that Wiki leaks was protected without knowing this, but now even more so! In typical American government intelligence fashion, at least in the past under Obama, anytime our own government agencies look bad they blame the person that made them look bad, versus their own incompetence and shortcomings. This is why I hate Pompeo, who seemed to immediately jump into the swamp and become indoctrinated within days to learn to hate Wikileaks and LOVE the CIA in it’s current form of BS holier than though abuse of power and anti-american protectors. Cleaning house requires a thorough look in the mirror, something the FBI, CIA have consistently failed to do as they act superior to the laws that created them. They are part of the executive branch and must be reduced in scope and power to what they were intended to do, protect America, not themselves. The attacks on Wikileaks is propaganda used to deflect from accountability and frankly disgusting.