Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
"they generally have not been held liable" isnt a valid excuse or a valid legal argument..
|
Yes, it is a valid argument and it is what the government intended - it's written into the regulations by the government.
They have specifically excluded services like Google, even going so far as to give them their own exclusion separate from ISPs and Hosts.
I don't understand why anyone is arguing when it is pretty clear in the regulations.
You guys can read the regulations and see where they have included the following:
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.
They have just described Google as well as large chat, forum, blog, image hosting, and many other sites.
Think about the exclusion the government has always give hosts and ISPs in criminal cases.
There is nothing new here - sites that cannot reasonably be expected to moderate all of their content have long been given some protection. This is just a continuation of that protection.