united-states constitutional-law
Special immunity that newspapers do not enjoy
<p>Pai said in a statement Thursday.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech.
But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity
denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is in regards to regulating &quot;social media&quot; outlets.</p>
<p>What immunity do newspapers NOT have that the likes of Facebook enjoy?
I ask, because I was under the understanding that a newspaper would be enjoying greater freedoms, as they have very explicit first amendment protection.</p>
<p>Note this question is in law section, only interested in how newspapers are regulated, whereas &quot;social media&quot; companies are not. What greater freedoms do these companies enjoy.</p>

<p>The additional protections for social-media platforms comes from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, not from the First Amendment.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 230</a> basically provides immunity from defamation and other kinds of liability. Generally speaking, it applies only to platforms, i.e., companies providing a service for <em>other people</em> to create and post content. This goes beyond social-media companies to include message boards, blogging platforms, dating websites, etc.</p>
<p>Newspapers generally do not enjoy this protection because the information that they post on their websites is information that they have generated themselves.</p>
