The Importance of Section 230 Immunity for Most

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Ken Arromdee says:

    Wouldn’t revenge porn be illegal under Section 2257, since the site owner would be subject to record keeping requirements that he wouldn’t be able to meet?

  2. Danielle Citron says:

    I think that pertains to the porn industry, not to sites like revenge porn. I know that Marc Randazza’s firm is doing some work on this issue–generally to oppose revenge porn because unlike the porn industry, the individuals targeted are not willing participants. But a good question.

  3. Ken Arromdee says:

    The law is widely reviled because it covers everyone, to the point where it was taken to court for defining everyone remotely involved with porn as a producer subject to the law. It’s still working its way through the courts, but it certainly sounds like it applies to revenge porn. Producing includes “inserting on a computer side an image….”

  4. Ken Arromdee says:

    I probably picked a bad clause. You could argue that that doesn’t cover the site owner, but other parts should. A producer includes someone who “otherwise manages” sexually explicit content, which means making editorial *or managerial* decisions. So the fact that they don’t exercise editorial control over the site wouldn’t be enough to exempt them (since “managerial” must mean something distinct from “editorial”.)

  5. Ken Arromdee says:

    (I wish I could edit posts here)

    Site owners should also fall under “any person… who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image”. Just publishing the image is enough; the part about editorial and managerial decisions is in a separate clause.