They are a business and they have the right to do this. 100% However they can no longer say they are "content-neutral". Also because they have taken an active step to censor they face the fact that in the future they could be sued for NOT censoring other content as there is now precedent created by this action. If you never censor then you have a clam of safe harbor. Emotionally the CEO is correct. From business poin…
That doesn't even begin to make sense... Or at least you're 20 years too late with that argument: "The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This ac…
That law does not change the fact that one could argue "well they did censor this so...". It is a risk. If you have a record that says "we censor nothing" then you are much safer. I would agree that under the law you site it should be clear cut, but that is not the way it has worked lately. It's a risk based on a moral belief and I applaud the CEO for doing it. That does not invalidated the risk.