Artwork

内容由SCOTUS Audio提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 SCOTUS Audio 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
Player FM -播客应用
使用Player FM应用程序离线!

Gonzalez v. Google LLC

2:40:41
 
分享
 

Manage episode 356026225 series 3427391
内容由SCOTUS Audio提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 SCOTUS Audio 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
Section 203(c)(l) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an "interactive computer service" (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for "publish[ing] ... information provided by another" "information content provider" (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals' decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(l) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(l) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(l) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1333.html
  continue reading

80集单集

Artwork
icon分享
 
Manage episode 356026225 series 3427391
内容由SCOTUS Audio提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 SCOTUS Audio 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
Section 203(c)(l) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an "interactive computer service" (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for "publish[ing] ... information provided by another" "information content provider" (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals' decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(l) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(l) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(l) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1333.html
  continue reading

80集单集

所有剧集

×
 
Loading …

欢迎使用Player FM

Player FM正在网上搜索高质量的播客,以便您现在享受。它是最好的播客应用程序,适用于安卓、iPhone和网络。注册以跨设备同步订阅。

 

快速参考指南

边探索边听这个节目
播放