Facebook Can Legally Block Pages Without Any Explanation

[Guest]

For many users, Facebook feels like a utility. Facebook users use Facebook to create new things and expect it to work reliably; users don’t expect Facebook will terminate them capriciously. Thus, when Facebook blocks users’ content, it can be shocking to users. The power company can’t just turn off a customer’s power. Does Facebook get to play by different rules?

 

Yes, it does. Facebook’s right to block user content is protected under multiple legal doctrines, including the First Amendment, federal law and its contract. Not surprisingly, then, a federal judge recently upheld Facebook’s right to block a user’s page in India even though Facebook never explained why.

 

The Case

 

Judge Koh dismissed the discrimination claim, citing 47 USC 230 (Section 230), a federal law enacted in 1996. Section 230 has two key provisions. 230©(1) says that websites aren’t liable for third party content. Section 230©(2) says websites aren’t liable for their filtering decisions. The judge relied exclusively on Section 230©(1), explaining that the content at issue (the SFJ page) was provided by someone other than Facebook (i.e., SFJ), and the only allegedly “discriminatory” behavior was Facebook’s decision not to publish SFJ’s content. The court also rejected SFJ’s argument that Facebook owed it an explanation.

 

Implications

 

The court’s dismissal of SFJ’s case isn’t surprising. Indeed, in 2003, a court used Section 230 to reject federal discrimination claims against AOL for how it handled third party content (the uncited Noah v. AOL case). Numerous other cases have upheld websites’ rights to block user content however they see fit. See, e.g., Klayman v. Facebook; Riggs v. MySpace.

 

The judge also doesn’t discuss Facebook’s First Amendment freedom of the press, but that could have been another grounds for protecting Facebook’s editorial discretion. See the uncited Zhang v. Baidu case, another example of a private lawsuit to combat a website’s alleged acceptance of a foreign government’s censorship request.

 

Although this was an easy case under current la, we shouldn’t overlook Facebook’s alleged complicity with a foreign government censorship requests. Unfortunately, websites have few good options when governments make such demands. 

 

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2015/11/17/facebook-can-legally-block-pages-without-any-explanation/

 

I feel like Facebook has been calling the wrong moves lately and more of there company strategies are being criticized by creators and authors for "stealing" content 

I hope that they answer some of these claims truthfully, but it seems that Zuckerberg won't budge under all this pressure 

[Xenift]

So can every single content streaming website.

 

I believe they have the "all rights to take down without prior notice and reason" policy behind every single one of this websites.

[Chasem121]

What a retarded case, Facebook isn't a public utility, its a social networking website made by a company. They can block or not block whatever they hell they feel like and it won't be illegal (no including CP and crap like that), a user of Facebook has no right to not be blocked from it.

[You_are_a_cunt]

I'm actually on Facebook's side on this.

I own a website myself and I'd most definitely limit my content (be it mine or in the form of a feature-post by someone else) if needed. Hell, I'm not even accepting traffic from entire countries.

[Paralectic]

I hope they block SoFloAntonio now..

[You_are_a_cunt]

I hope they block SoFloAntonio now..

There's thousands upon thousands of pages that shouldn't be on Facebook, yet they somehow still survive...

[Misanthrope]

Every single private entity can refuse service and do that. They only need to return whatever money you paid so here you go: a check for fucking 0.00 

[Guest]

Facebook isn't a utility, they can block what ever they want. 

 

 

@revsilverspine I think most people are on Facebook's side. 

[SPAS-ID]

I hope they block SoFloAntonio now..

^we need this, coz he steal everything

[linuxfan66]

Just like reddit has the right to refuse unwanted content so Facebook. Your freedom of speech only applies to your own private property and reasonable things stated on public property (ie no I'm carrying a bomb)

[GoodBytes]

Please add your own content to the news. Don't copy and paste the article, and dump it in a quote.

Please fix, before I move the thread.

 

Thank you.

 

Posting guideline: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/11724-read-before-posting-in-this-section/

[rcarteraz]

Is this really surprising though? Did anyone think otherwise?

[Real_PhillBert]

Their site, their rules. If you dont like it, feel free to create your own. 

[NAP51DMustang]

+1 for Facebook, their site they get to do with it what they want. just like here.

[zacRupnow]

Is this supposed to be surprising? I would think they should be able to do this, like a business in person: "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

[GoodBytes]

and the news is out. PM me when it will be fixed. In the mean time, if someone wants to post the news, they can.