Recently representatives from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube testified in front of Congress that their companies are to be considered "neutral public forums" under the protections of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The CDA provides liability protections for companies in the case of litigation stemming from user generated content. Basically, you can't go after a company if a user says or does something illegal using the company's public forum offering.
With that said, companies that claim protections under the CDA by labeling themselves as neutral public forums are not allowed to engage in political censorship or editorializing. They can choose one, but not both. Either CDA protection or the ability to censor content for political reasons.
It's my position that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are double dipping. All three have been shown to be heavily censoring any kind of content with a conservative leaning message.
Can you please point me to the section of the CDA which predicates the benefit upon being a neutral public forum. I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just not been able to find where this is specified.
ReplyDeleteThank you again for all the knowledge you distribute,Good post. I was very interested in the article, it's quite inspiring I should admit. I like visiting you site since I always come across interesting articles like this one.Great Job, I greatly appreciate that.Do Keep sharing! Regards, auto facebook stream viewers
ReplyDelete