[governance] Google to Censor Blogposts

[Roland Perry]

In message <21741.13583.316636.321410 at world.std.com>, at 21:35:59 on 
Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> writes
>Whatever happened to the theory that if you act as the censor then you
>can be held responsible for the content (e.g., failure to perform
>liability when some kid gets porn this way anyhow)?

It's going to be something that's location-specific.

>Did that have no legal basis? Is there any case trail?

in the USA: Stratton-Oakmont & Porush v. Prodigy, 1995.

Fortunately, Congress overturned Stratton Oakmont nine months later by 
enacting Section 509 of the Communications Decency Act, codified as 47 
U.S.C. [ss] 230 ("Section 230"). Section 230 grants online providers a 
near-blanket immunity from liability for their users' content. This 
immunity applies whether or not the online provider tries to control 
content it deems objectionable...

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=405720&seqNum=3

However, as the English idiom says: "mud sticks"; and the meme that 
acting as a censor imperils a service provider just won't go away.
-- 
Roland Perry

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t