Please sample here:

January 16, 2021. Apple Phone- Top Stories-Apple News/ The Atlantic/ Snigdha Poonam/ India Has a Fake- Jobs Problem

The reporter pedals under the maze of her words:

“Entering india’s professional class isn’t easy. The barriers are both diverse—caste, family background, gender, language, and religion, to name a few—and deep-rooted.”

And her report carries embedded links:

Read: The callousness of India’s COVID-19 response

Read: Misinformation is endangering India’s election

Now this may be straightaway termed as misinformation or denigrating India under the cover of Freedom of Speech and Expression in the safe haven of USA of any speech.

Interestingly, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which had been on the forefront to fight for Section 230 in USA for 30 years, wrote:

“The legal protections provided by CDA 230 are unique to U.S. law; European nations, Canada, Japan, and the vast majority of other countries do not have similar statutes on the books. While these countries have high levels of Internet access, most prominent online services are based in the United States. This is in part because CDA 230 makes the U.S. a safe haven for websites that want to provide a platform for controversial or political speech and a legal environment favorable to free expression.” https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230.

Section 230

Section 230 (2) (c) reads “PROTECTION FOR ”GOOD SAMARITAN” BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.—

(1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER.–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.

(2) CIVIL LIABILITY.–No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of– (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict Communications Act of 1934 90 access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).”

Can the freedom of speech and expression, irresponsible speech,  Indecency, misinformation, fake news coexist. By letter of law yes, not by spirit of the law.

If you read sub-clause (1) and (2) independent of the complete Section 230 (2) (c ), those may turn up two different animals altogether.

The purpose of sub clauses (1) and (2), is stated clear enough: PROTECTION FOR ”GOOD SAMARITAN” BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE MATERIAL.

Sub-clauses (1) and (2) don’t operate independent of the purpose.

Even the First Amendment will not permit that.

First Amendment

The First Amendment reads, “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.”

How right he was who said: “Small men command the letter of the law. Great men serve its spirit…”

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.