lawfag here with a repost of an old notable on decency act exemption in relation to CP - this nunes suit could also have implications here if he wins on the content provider issue - and it looks like he has a good shot
lawfag here
anons - time to consider liability for publicaion of obscene, indecent, CP, and/or porn material on the internet. This was spurred by an anon post referreing to the transparency pages of the 8chan boards - anon was responding to a query why CP was not posted more by shills.
Well the simple answer is the shills can be prosecuted! how you say? the board is anon right? WRONG - this board is NOT anon - BO can view the IP HASH of all users - with that hash, LEO can obtain warrants and track the posts back to (YOU).
That said, 8chan and most other internet services DO NOT give out user data voluntarily or even easily faced with legal process - but many - including 8chan will cooperate in certain cases. The transparecny data for this site does list a couple cases where info WAS provided and guess what - CP warrants. And why, one may ask - isnt 8chan itself in danger of being prosecuted?
Well - the answer is based on The Communications Decency Act of 1996. Prior to 1996, any ISP that "published" obscene material/CP (and other things such as defamatory items) could be sued (civil) or prosecuted (criminal)
Allowing/facilitating posting from others - such as chat rooms, comments blogs, etc - were NOT "publishing" and the ISP were NOT liable for that as they did not "publish" it. However the ISP's DID attempt to regulate CP and obscene material (and other categories - think hate speeech!) on their sites. A major court case ruled that this activity DID make them the publisher and they were liable.
Congress did not want to discourage ISP's from their own enforcement efforts so they overruled this court case by including a section in the law that expressly immunized ISP's:
"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." 47 USC 230
In other words the ISP can edit and maintain a site without being considered a publisher of the info posted there by third parties. The law expressly reserves the govt. ability to prosecute the actual posters (publishers) of CP and obscene materials.
As a side note, this law also prohibited "obscene and indecent" material on the internet. That section was promptly thrown out by SCOTUS as an infringement on free speech. Remember - speech and publication of porn IS protected UNLESS it is "obscene". Defining what is "obscene" is known as the "Miller Test" which has 3 factors - if anons want to read them they can look up this term.
As to CP specifically there is another welter of state and federal laws. 18 U.S. Code § 2256 prohibits CP which is broadly defined under the rubric "sexually explicit conduct - actual or simulated" Search on the section for full details. The Courts went on to refine this standard with a 6 prong analysis which can be viewed by anons by searching for "Dost Test".
Yet another layer had to do with anime, cartoons and illustrations. This was prohibited by the 1995 law - but it too was struck down as unconstitutional. In 2003 Congress responsded with yet another law that attempted to cure the problems - the result is mixed - some cases under the law have been uphelad and some have been struck down.
In other words anons - back to the central theme of all my posts - THE LAW IS AN ASS! THE LAW IS A CLUSTERFUCK! The law is absurd and complex and chaotic - Congress is to blame but the COURTS are far far worse. AGAIN now see why POTUS and THE PLAN has to get control of SCOTUS and all the other federal courts? WE MUST RETURN TO THE RULE OF LAW. COURTS CANNOT LEGISLATE FOR AMERICA!!! It IS habbening anons.