Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Political Football Section 230 Case — Why This One?
The Supreme Court has decided in the context of national security to consider the parameters of, and possible limits to, "Section 230" liability protections for social media companies. Specifically, the court in Gonzalez v. Google will consider whether Google, through its YouTube service, should be held responsible for "aiding and abetting" terrorism because its algorithm recommended a terrorist group's videos to other users. The court also agreed to hear a related case involving Google, Twitter and Facebook in which posts allegedly played a role in another terrorist attack.
Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 immunizes social media companies from liability for what third parties post to their websites and online platforms. Section 230, sometimes called the 26 words that created the Internet, states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Section 230 also protects social media companies from actions taken in good faith to take down or limit the availability of material they find objectionable.
In recent years, Section 230 has become very controversial and has been under attack from both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats criticize the companies for not doing enough to moderate or remove content deemed racist, hurtful or deceitful. Republicans complain that social media companies censor conservative content and speakers. Congress has struggled with how to reconcile these critiques and with what reforms, if any, to make to Section 230.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.