The wiki (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230) page has this
> The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection > from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the > removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, > even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good > faith. On 14 January 2021 3:37:41 pm IST, Keith Medcalf <[email protected]> wrote: > >I thought y'all yankee doodles had this thing called the Communication >Decency Act section 230 that prevented a "service provider" from being >responsible for the content of third-party's -- whether or not they >were acting as a publisher; and, also the principle of law that an >agreement to violate the law (as in a Contract which ignored that >provision that the "service provider" was not liable for the content >provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio? > >Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on, >that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a >prior agreement to violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and >that Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or >damages, including aggravated or punitive damages, from Amazon. > >The only exception would be if the "content" were Criminal and that >would require a court finding that the content was Criminal but, such >facts not in evidence, Amazon has violated the law and should be held >liable. You cannot convict someone of murder and have them executed >simply because they have a hand which may hold a gun which may then be >used to commit murder in order to prevent the murder. > >First there must be establishment of the fact of the murder, not the >mere establishment of a hypothetical fantasy of fact. > >But then again it is likely that the lawyers representing Parler are of >low ability and unable to make the case required. > >-- >Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is >paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: NANOG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of >>Jeff P >>Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43 >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re Parler >> >>ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief: >> >>https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Ama >>zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf >> >>JeffP >>[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
