>Sec. 230 legal immunity
lawfag here
here is the law and the 3 way test used by courts = notes added b lawfag
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test.
A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:
The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
CLEARLY NO ISSUE HERE THEY QUALIFY
The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
FB QUALIFIES
The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
FB SATISFIES THIS TOO
DONT THINK A SUIT WILL WORK ANONS THIS EXCEPTION IS CLEAR
"selectively banning channels" does not seem enough to me to over ride the fact that FB did not provide the content and that is the test
BUT I COULD BE WRONG