Here is something I agree with former President Donald Trump about: We need to do something about Section 230.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a federal statute that provides immunity for social media websites that publish libelous material. Other publishers have no such immunity: If I defamed you in this letter (“John Doe eats babies in the basement of a local pizza parlor”), and the Press Herald published it, the paper would be liable for injuries caused by my statements. And that’s a good thing. It encourages publishers to fact check, and be careful about, what they publish.
The rationale for Section 230, as I understand it, is that platforms like Twitter and Facebook couldn’t exist if they were responsible for ferreting out all libelous content. Maybe so. But surely, we can find a middle ground between holding Twitter responsible for every tweet and allowing it blanket immunity for smears that it knows, or should know, are completely false.
I’ll admit that we lawyers are sometimes too quick to think that lawsuits are the answers to all of society’s ills. But when it comes to social media companies, a few lawsuits (or at least the fear of lawsuits) certainly couldn’t hurt.
Taylor Asen
New Gloucester
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.