No it fucking does not.
madattheinternet.com
madattheinternet.com
>Tranny lawyer (retard) says that Section 230 protects the site from stalking / harassment / cyberbullying / whatever charges.
Wrong. Section 230 is like 3 paragraphs long so fucking read it. This stupid fag didn't read the law he claims to be an expert in.
www.law.cornell.edu
47 U.S. Code § 230(c)(2) is titled
CIVIL LIABILITY. There is nothing in Section 230 about CRIMINAL LIABILITY. Harassment and stalking is a crime. So if the site was facilitating this, if I was facilitating this, I already have no expectation of immunity from this statute because it offers none whatsoever. (e)(1)
explicitly states "No effect on criminal law.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of ... any other Federal criminal statute."
What Section 230 does is protect websites (like mine, like Twitter, like Facebook) from direct civil liability from both what is said on the platform and what is removed from the platform. If someone defames you on Twitter, you must sue THEM and not Twitter. This is critical to the continued existence of open platforms. If Facebook was personally liable for every post on Facebook, you can bet your sweet ass that the amount of shit getting deleted from Facebook would be astronomical. Only the safest, least offensive things imaginable could survive with that sort of liability.
On deleting, the 'sword' to the 'sword and shield' of Section 230 is the ability to delete things without liability. If someone makes money from being on Facebook and they are banned, they cannot sue Facebook for the resulting damages (i.e. loss of sales revenue from no advertising).
What I can do is personally commit civil offenses. If I said something defamatory and I was sued, then I still am liable for what I say. That's it.
There is no qualifying factors for this. If it is an 'interactive computer service', it is protected.