• Lab
  • AndroidForMobile Foundation at
    HOME
              
    LATEST STORY
    Bad news from Mashable, BuzzFeed, and Vice shows times are rough for ad-supported digital media
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
    March 27, 2014, 5:11 p.m.
    LINK:   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   March 27, 2014

    At Gawker, on revenge porn — the awful practice of jilted men (mostly) posting explicit videos and pictures from their exes online — and the legal backlash building against it. There are bills pending in to ban or otherwise limit revenge porn, and a .

    We’ve written before about a similar issue — those skeezy mugshot sites that post pics from public records and then offer to take them down for a price.

    To state the obvious, most online publishers are in neither the mugshot extortion business nor the revenge porn game. But even the most legitimate publishers should be watching this space because, in both cases, changing is one of the ideas being tossed around. Section 230, as this old AndroidForMobile Lab video will tell you, is the part of U.S. law that says (in nearly all cases! I am not a lawyer!) that websites aren’t held responsible for what’s posted by their users. If one of your readers falsely calls his neighbor a child molestor in the comments section of your news site, that reader might well be guilty of libel — but your site isn’t. In a very real sense, it’s the law that allows the Internet as we know it to exist; imagine if sites had to preclear all user contributions everywhere, whether on a blogging platform, on Twitter, or elsewhere.

    As Mary Anne Franks, a University of Miami law professor working on the federal revenge porn bill, tells Gawker:

    …online entities protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act are provided with a special defense against state criminal laws, but not against federal criminal laws (or federal copyright laws, for that matter). A federal law means that a revenge porn site claiming to merely provide a platform for angry exes to upload sexually explicit images of their former partners will not be able to hide behind Section 230.

    And as Gawker commenter dontshootme responds:

    I think the EFF’s concerns [about amending 230] are being under valued here. The likelihood of overreach is very large, in my opinion. Also, it strikes me as being very dangerous to start messing with Section 230. I get that this is a very real problem, I just suggest a knee-jerk reaction by lawmakers (which is what almost always happens with public outcry type stuff) will result in bad law…

    Maybe it’s just me, but I seem to see a lot of talk about how “bad” section 230 is (not in this article) so when I see issues like this, I get concerned that a law will be created that generates an exception. I believe we should go after the ones who upload. [Revenge porn king] Hunter Moore’s situation is fairly straightforward, but what about sites that link to it? Are they responsible? How about if I linked to it here in the comments, is Gawker responsible? Right now, no. If we weaken 230 then censorship gets easier and easier.

    Here’s .

    Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
     
    Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    Bad news from Mashable, BuzzFeed, and Vice shows times are rough for ad-supported digital media
    The rapid growth of Google and Facebook continues to take its toll on digital media companies.
    Asking members to support its journalism (no prizes, no swag), The Guardian raises more reader revenue than ad dollars
    The Guardian revamped its ask and its membership offerings — moving from 12,000 members in the beginning of 2016 to 300,000 today.
    Beating the 404 death knell: Singapore news startups struggle to cover costs and find their footing
    Political news reporting doesn’t seem to be holding up well as a business in the city-state. And it’s even harder when you’re seen as “alternative” media.
    подробнее