Brendan Carr

@BrendanCarrFCC ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked Jan. 24, 2021

Created

Wed Oct 28 23:14:43 +0000 2020

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter for iPhone

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC

@digiphile However broadly one wants to define those two sets of conditions (including the “otherwise objectionable” language), they still are conditions that have some meaning and thus exclude at least some takedowns. “Bad faith” ones for instance. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 28, 2020

Preceded By

Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC

@digiphile Yep. And this language contains at least two conditions an ICS must satisfy to benefit from 230(c)(2): First, it must act in “good faith.” And second, it must consider/determine that the material falls into one of seven statutory categories (“obscene” etc.) — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 28, 2020

Followed By

Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC

@digiphile So 230(c) does not give ICSs carte blanche to take down content while maintaining their 230(c) immunity, contrary to the suggestion by some court cases. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 28, 2020