About this Event
This event is limited to current members of the NYU community.
Panelists:
Megan Iorio: EPIC
Tom McBrien: EPIC
Yael Eisenstat: Cybersecurity for Democracy (NYU)
Moderator:
Jason Schultz, Engelberg Center on Innoation Law & Policy
How, and if, to hold online platforms accountable for their effects on public health, safety and democracy has been one of the most hotly debated, and polarizing, topics in tech policy for years. One of the pathways for accountability lies with the courts. Historically, courts have accepted broad interpretations of immunity provisions like Section 230 to cover a range of tech behavior that critics assert extends beyond the original intention of the law’s drafters. In recent years, there have been numerous court cases making their way through the system that could, if successful, start shifting the current interpretation of Section 230 and set the stage for redefining the lines around preemptive immunity.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and NYU-Northeastern University’s Cybersecurity for Democracy believe the courts have misinterpreted laws like Section 230 to cover a broader range of tech behavior than the original law intended and advocate for a more nuanced approach. In this panel, they will dive into their arguments, found in their recent amicus brief filed in the Ninth Circuit, including discussions around the history of Section 230; how courts are applying Section 230 today; where novel theories are breaking through; how Section 230 and the First Amendment are related; and legal arguments around “the moderator’s dilemma." They will also offer insights on the technical expertise needed to fully understand how accountability can apply, including how algorithmic feeds work and how they could apply in cases involving social media design.
Event Venue & Nearby Stays
Furman Hall Room 120, 245 Sullivan Street, New York, United States
USD 0.00
