Comment by jimmyjazz14
1 month ago
Coming from someone who hate social media (and has kids) this might seems like a good thing on the surface, but I worry it will be another case used to allow the government to limit speech on the internet for adults.
This is a civil trial between a regular person and corporations about product liability. It has nothing to do with the government.
Liability and free speech are conjoined at the hip in the United States, courtesy of Section 230.
> Liability
Product liability is a subdivision of tort law that allows for recovery for damages caused by the makers or distributors of a product. This case has nothing to do with Section 230, the plaintiff successfully argued that the product was defectively designed and caused harm to the plaintiff.
Section 230 immunity is not a shield against all liability, it's only a shield against hosting problematic user content.
True, but people in the government are already pointing to it as reason to pass the "Kids Online Safety Act" and overturn section 230.