Section 230 of the Communications Act, MOVED from Articles: Intent/Sprit Options

www.menudo.biz

This post has been edited by www.Menudo.biz: Sun 16th December 2007, 3:42am

What is clear in a recent Federal ruling is that the immunity is taken away once the owner of the site states to become an editor and chooses the content for discussion. In other words you can't have a free flow of information and comments if you will edit the content or delete content from some and allow content from others.

Link please.

Hello,

I think that quite a few people here have done extensive research on this subject and their ideas present a quite contrasting picture. I would definitely talk with Daniel Brandt about this. You might wish to send him a private message, for a "head's up".

This article on Wikitruth , although dealing with section 2257 (obscene images) rather than section 230, provides a very amusing study of why Wikipedia could not probably claim to be a common carrier, by their own admission. This could be important in building the case that their claims of being a service provider are not valid. They will deny this, of course, but given their recent, completely arbitrary and possible illegal plan to change licenses from the GFDL to a CC license, the fact that they are asserting that they do have this right to impose a license which tend to suggest to me a pubisher's role; A "service provider" does not assert any control over these sort fo issues, other than to avoid liability.

PS I would suggest to mods that this could be more visible in the main forum, as it's probably not about a specific WP article.

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sat 15th December 2007, 3:32pm

www.menudo.biz

This post has been edited by www.Menudo.biz: Sun 16th December 2007, 3:43am

Hello,

I think that quite a few people here have done extensive research on this subject and their ideas present a quite contrasting picture. I would definitely talk with Daniel Brandt about this. You might wish to send him a private message, for a "head's up".

Welcome Menudo.biz. I second FTA thoughts. Please search this site's former postings on Sec. 230 Immunity. I believe you will find a pretty high level of discussion. This discussion has developed to a point where it is usually appropriate to cite specific cases, or even passages in cases, to support positions taken on matters relating to the law in this area. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Hello,

I think that quite a few people here have done extensive research on this subject and their ideas present a quite contrasting picture. I would definitely talk with Daniel Brandt about this. You might wish to send him a private message, for a "head's up".

Welcome Menudo.biz. I second FTA thoughts. Please search this site's former postings on Sec. 230 Immunity. I believe you will find a pretty high level of discussion. This discussion has developed to a point where it is usually appropriate to cite specific cases, or even passages in cases, to support positions taken on matters relating to the law in this area. I look forward to hearing from thoughts.

Here's a link to search results for "Section 230", for convenience.

Check out the lastest Menudo music video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEfm0fYEcc&feature=related

Let me know what you think.

This post has been edited by www.Menudo.biz: Sun 16th December 2007, 3:43am

This article on Wikitruth , although dealing with section 2257 (obscene images) rather than section 230, provides a very amusing study of why Wikipedia could not probably claim to be a common carrier, by their own admission. This could be important in building the case that their claims of being a service provider are not valid. They will deny this, of course, but given their recent, completely arbitrary and possible illegal plan to change licenses from the GFDL to a CC license, the fact that they are asserting that they do have this right to impose a license which tend to suggest to me a pubisher's role; A "service provider" does not assert any control over these sort fo issues, other than to avoid liability.

Section 230 of the CDA does not use the term "service provider". It uses the term "provider or user of an interactive computer service", and defines "interactive computer service" as "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."

By the way, 2257 was overturned as unconstitutional.

This post has been edited by anthony: Sat 15th December 2007, 4:24pm

Interestingly, back in the '80s a former Menudo member, Johnny Lozada, did a song and video that was a duet with then-Latin-teen-star Tatiana (later a popular children's entertainer in Latin America) which was part of a campaign to get Latino kids to say no to premarital sex. (So it's funny that there's now a Menudo sex scandal.)

My goal is to file a lawsuit by Friday of this week outlining the facts above and much more . This legal issue is bigger than me or Jimbo Wales however his actions allow me to have a legitimate cause of action to complain about the 230 communications act. If Wikipedia prevails at the trial level or vice-versa I do know that I will appeal and seek case law to establish how host, IP's and onwers of sites like wikipedia can on one hand seek the protection of the act and on the other violate its intent for the free flow of information.

I appreciate your comments below as I prepare the Summons and Complaint over the next few days. The completed lawsuit against Wikipedia will be posted when completed first in draft form and later in the filed completed stamped from the Court copy.

Regards

This is a longtime coming. To be frank, Google and other ISPs don't have the same issues as Wikipedia. For one, Wikipedia actively edits content personally, and retains editorial control, in that he can erase and delete content at will. At will. This invalidates in entirety the Section 230 coverage.

Wikipedia actively edits content personally, and retains editorial control, in that he can erase and delete content at will. At will. This invalidates in entirety the Section 230 coverage.

I believe your analysis and theory are correct, and would be convincing in a court of law.

any links or documents feel free to send me a private confidential email to news@menudo.biz

any links or documents feel free to send me a private confidential email to news@menudo.biz

Here's a video on Youtube where Jimbo sells Wikia in Poland as a project of Wikipedia.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=paW0esd7Mrs

Poland is their main operation.

This has some links to the 230 issue, I would think. Or maybe just on the non-profit/profit mixup.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sat 15th December 2007, 6:47pm

no offense but whats the deal with the quality of that video.

is this guy running is operation out of a basement somewhere in florida?

no offense but whats the deal with the quality of that video.

is this guy running is operation out of a basement somewhere in florida?

No, I believe that it was for Polish TV.