Media Advocacy Groups Come Out Mixed on 230
The nonprofit journalism advocacy group Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press wrote in its brief that 230 tempers companies’ willingness to remove controversial speech “including lawful, public interest journalism” out of fear it could be subject to litigation. This could even include pre-screening content before its published, meaning controversial subjects would be under even heavier scrutiny.
For journalists and their work, it means breaking news can proliferate quickly, and it also allows reporters to identify sources and investigate sources without having to fear repercussions for doing so in public forums.
At the same time, media advocacy group Free Press Action instead argued that both sides of the debate are missing the point. Google, it said, should not receive blanket immunity for its systems when they host and recommend videos that, for example, promote terrorism.
Though 230 means Google is not necessarily a publisher of user content, “it does not preclude classifying Google as a distributor and obligating it to remove content it knows to be unlawful.” Essentially, if Google knew it was publishing specific instances of harmful content, only then would they have no defense.
