nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqypvdkvqdxp038zkn46lkky8gc32dantqtjl5y275dukl59ua4plr2gxglz5 The Manila Principles are a wish (from EFF), not the current legal position.

The real world equivalent - as nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyp48tys0cmtpj4qq5k7yw2w7tfx5sqgm5hcye9t8qmyqat85lde5shfwsp3 should know - is that the publisher of a book is liable for the content of the book they publish (rather than the author). And, in most cases, if a book contains a defamatory comment, then, yes, the bookshop could be held liable for selling it (and have been, especially in the UK). (A man living in Texas wishes to talk about books to underline his idea of freedom of expression. ROFL.)

Here’s Australian law. You’ll note that there isn’t a Section 230-style “you’re not the publisher” lawlessness clause; there is, though, a defence of being a subordinate distributor. There’s similar (“innocent dissemination”) in UK law. Section 230, however, removes all liability - even when an online service provider is told that a comment is illegal.

https://assets.bne.social/media_attachments/files/115/754/122/932/458/823/original/525539fa15ed232d.jpeg