Cyberlaw discussion/Day 3: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Title 47 (Section 230) == | == Title 47, Communications Decency Act (Section 230) == | ||
* Part (c)(2)(a) seems to allow "interactive computer service providers" to block any content, regardless of whether it is constitutionally protected. Part (d) states that the provider must further inform users about options to filter on their own. Why not the converse? Shouldn't the ICSP have an obligation to tell its users that certain content is being blocked? [[User:Cjohnson|Cjohnson]] 09:12, 4 January 2008 (EST) | * Part (c)(2)(a) seems to allow "interactive computer service providers" to block any content, regardless of whether it is constitutionally protected. Part (d) states that the provider must further inform users about options to filter on their own. Why not the converse? Shouldn't the ICSP have an obligation to tell its users that certain content is being blocked? [[User:Cjohnson|Cjohnson]] 09:12, 4 January 2008 (EST) | ||
== Jonathan Zittrain, A History Of Online Gatekeeping, pp. 257-263 == | |||
== Doe v. MySpace, 474 F.Supp.2d 843 (W.D. Tex. 2007), pp. 1-10 == | |||
== Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, 489 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2007) == | |||
== John Siegenthaler op-ed on Wikipedia == | |||
== WikiScanner (browse) == | |||
Revision as of 11:46, 4 January 2008
Title 47, Communications Decency Act (Section 230)
- Part (c)(2)(a) seems to allow "interactive computer service providers" to block any content, regardless of whether it is constitutionally protected. Part (d) states that the provider must further inform users about options to filter on their own. Why not the converse? Shouldn't the ICSP have an obligation to tell its users that certain content is being blocked? Cjohnson 09:12, 4 January 2008 (EST)