The Federal Agency of News (FAN), an outfit that federal prosecutors describe as a corporate sibling to the notorious Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA), filed a lawsuit against Facebook last year seeking unspecified damages and arguing that the company aimed to “silence” it, a “legitimate news organization,” by shutting down its pages in a bid to “deter” its “free speech.”

The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice Saturday in San Jose Superior District Court by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who concluded that FAN's current argument “fails” and “lacks merit” because Facebook is neither a state actor nor a public forum, meaning it does not need to adhere to First Amendment protections granted by the U.S. Constitution.

Quoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope????

Quoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope????

Quoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope????

Quoted:
I object to that. Some entities become so pervasive, so popular and powerful, that they in fact become utilities, and should be so regulated.

Quoted:
No, the judge is well grounded in the fact that you don't have a right to the internet, and that Facebook is still a private company that is not produced or maintained by a government entity.

ETA:  seems like judge decided "their website, their rules"?

Quoted:
So how does it work that Trump is not allowed to black anyone?

Quoted:
So Twitter IS a public forum but Facebook is NOT?

Do I have that right based on the recent rulings, or does this overrule the twitter ruling as well?

I'm fine with the ruling way so long as it's applied equally.

Quoted:
I object to that. Some entities become so pervasive, so popular and powerful, that they in fact become utilities, and should be so regulated.

Quoted:
Lots of folks here love big government when it suits them.

Their company, their rules.   Or, more government?  You can't have both.

Quoted:
So Twitter IS a public forum but Facebook is NOT?

Do I have that right based on the recent rulings, or does this overrule the twitter ruling as well?

I'm fine with the ruling so long as it's applied equally.

Quoted:
So Twitter IS a public forum but Facebook is NOT?

Do I have that right based on the recent rulings, or does this overrule the twitter ruling as well?

I'm fine with the ruling so long as it's applied equally.

Quoted:

He's using Twitter in his official capacity as president. If he just tweeted his random thoughts then he could block anyone he wants.

Quoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope????

Quoted:
And this means that Facebook is now a curator or publisher of ideas, and can be sued for libelous postings?

Quoted:
And this means that Facebook is now a curator or publisher of ideas, and can be sued for libelous postings?

Library or newspaper?

The court decision that started it all had to do with some online posts about a company called Stratton Oakmont. On one finance-themed bulletin board, someone had accused the investment firm of fraud.

Years later, Stratton Oakmont's crimes would be turned into a Hollywood film, The Wolf of Wall Street. But in 1994, the firm called the accusations libel and wanted to sue. But because it was the Internet, the posts were anonymous. So instead, the firm sued Prodigy, the online service that hosted the bulletin board.

Prodigy argued it couldn't be responsible for a user's post — like a library, it could not liable for what's inside its books. Or, in now-familiar terms: It's a platform, not a publisher.

The court disagreed, but for an unexpected reason: Prodigy moderated posts, cleaning up foul language. And because of that, the court treated Prodigy like a newspaper liable for its articles.

As Cox read about this ruling, he thought this was "exactly the wrong result": How was this amazing new thing — the Internet — going to blossom, if companies got punished for trying to keep things clean? "This struck me as a way to make the Internet a cesspool," he says.

At this moment, Cox was flying from his home in California to return to Congress. Back at work, Cox, a Republican, teamed up with his friend, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, to rectify the court precedent.

Together, they produced Section 230 — perhaps the only 20-year-old statute to be claimed by Internet companies and advocates as technologically prescient.

"The original purpose"

Section 230 lives inside the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and it gives websites broad legal immunity: With some exceptions, online platforms can't be sued for something posted by a user — and that remains true even if they act a little like publishers, by moderating posts or setting specific standards.

"Section 230 is as important as the First Amendment to protecting free speech online, certainly here in the U.S.," says Emma Llanso, a free expression advocate at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

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 U.S. Code § 230
The argument goes that without Section 230, we would never have platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Yelp or Reddit — sites that allow ordinary people to post opinions or write reviews.

Section 230 says that "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 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

Quoted:
So Facebook hasn't reached government status yet?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Quoted:
Socialize it, then regulate it under the first Amendment.  Fire everyone, hire new gov. employees to run it and give them, from top to bottom the same wage, let's say, $10.50 an hour.  Tax Zuckerberg into oblivion for reasons

Profit? errr, socialism?

Quoted:
And this means that Facebook is now a curator or publisher of ideas, and can be sued for libelous postings?

Quoted:
time to start throwing all those net neutrality arguments back at the left.

Quoted:
So how does it work that Trump is not allowed to block anyone?