section 230

Bilingual

5th Circuit blocks Texas law requiring websites to filter "harmful" speech
2 months ago
- The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that Texas cannot enforce a law requiring websites to block minors from harmful speech.
- The law's monitoring and filtering requirement was preempted by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act.
- Tech groups CCIA and NetChoice challenged the Texas SCOPE Act and won a preliminary injunction, which the 5th Circuit upheld.
- The court found the requirement would have forced websites to censor broad, vaguely defined categories of lawful speech.
- NetChoice argued that parents, not the government, are best positioned to decide what is appropriate for their families.
Maybe Section 230 doesn’t shield AI companies from liability, after all
2 months ago
- Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may not protect AI companies from liability for their own software's outputs, as suggested by a new German ruling.
- The German decision holds companies liable for chatbot errors because such speech is not third-party content but the company's own speech.
- Sam Altman's 2023 Senate testimony claimed OpenAI should not have full immunity, but his company later supported an Illinois law shielding AI labs from liability for severe harms.
- A bipartisan bill to sunset Section 230 was introduced but has low chances of enactment due to opposition from tech giants.
- If US courts follow the German reasoning, AI providers like Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic could face liability for hallucinations, defamation, and bad medical advice.
- The author argues that removing Section 230 protection for AI companies could force the industry to reduce hallucinations and build safer systems.
Apple Defeats Liability for Not Scanning iCloud for CSAM
2 months ago
- Apple abandoned its NeuralHash CSAM scanning and implemented end-to-end encryption for iCloud, causing confusion and legal pressure.
- The court dismissed the lawsuit under Section 230, ruling that claims against Apple treat it as a publisher since detecting CSAM requires reviewing content.
- The court rejected attempts to use exceptions from Doe v. Twitter, Lemmon v. Snap, and Roommates.com.
- Judge Wise expressed unease, noting that without a legal mandate, companies have no obligation to detect CSAM, but breaking end-to-end encryption would harm privacy for millions.
- The judge highlighted that victims of CSAM suffer ongoing harm, but current law prioritizes privacy, and called for lawmakers to impose clear requirements.
- The opinion downplayed encryption's role, but the author argues that forcing scanning would break encryption for all purposes, potentially enabling new abuses.

section 230

5th Circuit blocks Texas law requiring websites to filter "harmful" speech

Maybe Section 230 doesn’t shield AI companies from liability, after all

Apple Defeats Liability for Not Scanning iCloud for CSAM