Cyberlaw discussion/Day 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:58, 4 January 2008

Part (c)(2)(a) seems to allow "interactive computer service providers" (a term that seems to include bulletin board operators but not ISPs) 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)

Revision as of 10:38, 4 January 2008 (view source) Cjohnson (talk \| contribs) (→‎Title 47 (Section 230)) ← Older edit		Revision as of 10:58, 4 January 2008 (view source) Cjohnson (talk \| contribs) (→‎Title 47 (Section 230)) Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Title 47 (Section 230) ==		== Title 47 (Section 230) ==

	* Part (c)(2)(a) seems to allow "~~information content~~ providers" (a term that seems to include bulletin board operators but not ISPs) 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 ~~ICP~~ 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" (a term that seems to include bulletin board operators but not ISPs) 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)