Talk:Communications Decency Act

Untitled
I think it would be good to include something about the ongoing challenge to the CDA by Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. More information about it can be found at http://www.barbaranitke.com/aboutlawsuit.html and http://www.sethf.com/nitke/cda-trial.php.

Daf 20:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've clarified a portion of the article and mentioned that case. Jamesday 20:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Split off Section 230 stuff?
Given the controversy surrounding this provision of the law; it is conceiveable that this section will dwarf the rest of the article. Thoughs? --EngineerScotty 22:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur that it should be kept on Wikipedia but edited for clarity and split off into a separate article. It is important as indicated by the frequent media coverage and the huge number of articles in all English-language law reviews on this issue. --Coolcaesar 06:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I doubt the current influx in attention will fade away any time soon. Ambyr 02:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Split done. --EngineerScotty 03:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I came here looking for information about the "good samaritan" provision and didn't find a reference to those words on this page. I read section 230 of the Act and added a short paragraph under the new Section 230 header describing the good samaritan provision (s. 230(c)), so that future readers will find the words "good samaritan" referenced here. -- Kaplanmyrth 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Abortion
Anyone want to add anything to the article about the section which made it illegal to provide abrotion information over the Internet (which the administration later admitted was unconstitutional and said it wouldn't enforce)? I'm not sure I have enough knowledge to write it myself. Ken Arromdee 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes this is an important issue, especially for european WP visitors. It should be described. 195.70.48.242 12:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Side-effects
anybody notice that this section would make it illegal for minors to be able to see pictures of sweat glands, or the descending colon on the internet? --Jotsund (not logged in)

Legislative History of the amendment formerly in intro
I have changed the introductory section because it contained false information. Neither Cox nor Wyden said anything about liability as a publisher in the broad sense that the article formerly led on. They only spoke about liability for websites that filter inappropriate and illegal material. The hearing can be found here: 141 CONG. REC. H8469-H8470 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995) (statement of Rep. Cox). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.11.246 (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Revising Section 230 for libel/defamation
The material about revising Section 230 for libel/defamation is basically true, see for example the recent book "The Offensive Internet". But it's a complicated topic, so I'm not going to attempt to boil it all down to one referenced sentence. If someone wants to try, that book may be a good place to start. Disclaimer: This is not meant to endorse any particular revision proposal, rather simply to note (NPOV) that there have been such proposals. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Does this law exist or not?!
The article does not actually say if the law exists! It begins with the words "The CDA was the first notable attempt...". The past tense makes it sound like a bill that was rejected, but later in the article it sounds like parts of it were passed, but then parts of those parts were rejected...

Please, someone say WHAT the deal is and which parts of this law (if any) are in force. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)