Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2017
- 46,062
- 29,788
They did that very thing on Trump's tweet about mail-in voting. They added some editorial content to his tweet.They're not editing other people's content. If they were to start deleting phrases to alter meaning or otherwise having a substantive effect on the content, they would be liable for that content;
The Prodigy holding makes Twitter liable for all content, not just what they edit.
Well you need to go back and re-read them, especially The Prodigy case.Yes, I've read about a dozen cases. You don't know what you're talking about.
The Prodigy case is why section 230 exists in the first place, to correct a problem with the legal framework for libel.
In Prodigy, the court held that in editing any of the content provided by users (later defined in230 as "information content providers") made Prodigy responsible for the entire continent of anything on their system, as the publisher.
230 does not change the holding in Prodigy. Rather, it carves out an exception whereby Internet service providers can avoid civil liability as held in Prodigy, if they are only editing for obscenity.
The 230 exception to liability under Prodigy is if you were only editing for obscenity.
How many different ways do I need to say that?
.