Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The statute specifically excepts federal criminal liability (§230(e)(1)), electronic privacy violations (§230(e)(4)) and intellectual property claims (§230(e)(2)). [6] There is also no immunity from state laws that are consistent with 230(e)(3) though state criminal laws have been held preempted in cases such as Backpage.com, LLC v.
Any change to Section 230 is likely to have ripple effects on online speech around the globe. “The rest of the world is cracking down on the internet even faster than the U.S.,” Goldman said ...
Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissing, inter alia, right of publicity claim under Section 230 without discussion). Courts have not yet addressed whether a state law trade secret claim is a "law pertaining to intellectual property."
"The First Amendment—not Section 230—is the basis for our free-speech protections in the U.S.," insist Pallone and Rodgers as they peddle a law that would extend their power over our ...
Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023), was a case at the Supreme Court of the United States which dealt with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which was established by section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for Internet service providers (ISPs) in dealing with terrorism ...
New bipartisan legislation would sunset Section 230 after next year.
Second, Section 230 of title 47 of the U.S. Code, part of a codification of the Communications Act of 1934 (Section 9 of the Communications Decency Act / Section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) [3] has been interpreted to mean that operators of Internet services are not publishers (and thus not legally liable for the words of third ...
Section 230 of the Communications Act, which prevents online platforms from being liable for the content posted by their users, will be evaluated by the Supreme Court in the coming season. There ...