Ethics and Section 230 of the CDA

According to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a website operator can correct, edit, and even remove content and still be immune from defamation claims (Citizen Media Law Project).

In some cases, a person may request for defamatory information to be removed, but the website operator has the right to refuse. Still, the web operator is covered by secton 230 if this person decides to sue. Personally, after receiving this kind of request I think I would feel obligated to look into it and if the information is found defamatory, I think the "nice" thing to do would be to remove the post.

Section 230 gives the web hosts the option of removing content. When requests for removal arise, I think it gives a web operator the chance to "sharpen" or improve their ethical thinking. I personally couldn't include that kind of information in anything I am a part of. But it has happened. Craigslist is one example and the case Donato v. Moldow is also an example of web operators exercising their right to keep up all content provided by a third party.

My point: Despite the fact that I wouldn't be breaking a law, my conscience wouldn't allow me to display defamatory information on my website. I guess it's against my morals to provide that type of information to viewers.

RE