Brendan Carr

@BrendanCarrFCC ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked Jan. 24, 2021

Created

Thu Oct 29 01:24:27 +0000 2020

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter for iPhone

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC

@riScorpian @jess_miers @digiphile It does. The question is whether your take down *also* qualifies for the statutory protections conferred by Section 230. You will always have First Amendment rights; any additional Section 230 rights only apply when your take down meets 230’s statutory criteria. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 29, 2020

Preceded By

Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC

@digiphile @CaseyNewton Reforms that make it “harder” to meet 230(c)(2)’s “good faith” standard would not increase liability for a website that does nothing. So it wouldn’t have the same effect. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 29, 2020

Followed By

Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC

@jess_miers @riScorpian @digiphile I think Congress made the decision in Section 230 to draw lines (for instance, it drew one between good faith and bad faith take downs) I think courts have erred by essentially eliminating those lines or not applying them by not reaching (c)(2). — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 29, 2020