Texas Supreme Court Justice Probes Section 230 Immunity (opens in new tab)

(xbiz.com)

14 pointsGameOfKnowing5y ago3 comments

3 comments

The women claim Facebook does not require minors to link their account to a parent or guardian’s account, install filters to stop adults from communicating with minors, or install software that could alert on buzzwords typically used by adults attempting to groom a child. . .

Facebook initially opposed FOSTA [Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017] but dropped its opposition after lawmakers amended it, changing the grounds for liability from “knowing conduct, by an individual or entity, by any means, that assists, supports or facilitates a violation of sex trafficking laws” to “knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a violation” of sex trafficking laws.

https://www.courthousenews.com/texas-court-refuses-to-toss-s...

gamblor9565y ago

Section 230 is a federal law. Generally, it would be futile for a state court to challenge a federal law granting immunity.

However, the case discussed raises issues of state level liability for sex-trafficking, which is explicitly carved out from section 230 immunity.

What is concerning about this case is that one of the justices, elected by the efforts of the Texas GOP, has already said outside of court that they would strip Facebook of all section 230 immunity because of "censorship" of conservative viewpoints...and the lawyers that brought this case are long-standing GOP fundraisers involved with the Texas GOP.

GameOfKnowingOP5y ago

Evangelical-backed child trafficking suits are a red herring that threatens to send every part of our internet infrastructure-- from government regulation to ISP rules to social media sites' internal polciies-- down the path to complete censorship of anything mildly risque.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse