The document discusses Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and related case law. It provides an overview of key points: - Section 230 provides immunity to interactive computer services by saying they shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. - Early cases like Cubby v. CompuServe established distributor liability, while Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy found a service could be a publisher if it moderated content. - Legislators wanted Section 230 to encourage development of digital technologies by limiting liability and allowing dialogue, while protecting corporate interests. - Section 230 has been upheld in cases involving defamation, privacy violations, negligence, and other torts associated with

1. Michelle Nary and Novea Lindsay

2. "No provider or user of an interactive
computer service shall be treated as
the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another
information content provider.”

3.  Cases
• Cubby,Inc.v.CompuServe,Inc.
 Ruling: dismissed
• Stratton Oakmont,Inc.v.Prodigy Servs.Co.
 Ruling: Stratton Oakmont
 Internet Development
• Legislators wanted to facilitate the development of digital
technologies
 Ex: moderator tools
• Company Liability
 Restriction of commentary
 1. Protect corporate interests
 2. Encourage dialogue

4.  Absolve Distributor Liability
 Encourage Free Speech
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Reddit
 Content and Child Safety Standards

6.  Defamation
• Blumenthal v.Drudge (1998)
 Upheld
 Privacy Violation
• Barnes v.Yahoo,Inc.(2009)
 Upheld
 Negligence
• Jane Doe v.America Online,Inc.(2001)
 Upheld
 Other torts associated with publishing
• Discrimination
 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v.Roommates.com, LLC (2008)
 Rejected

7. 'Revenge Porn' Victims Are Right To Be
Angry, But Perhaps Not Here

8. Screening
Selection
Editing

9. Soliciting
Purchasing
Facilitating
Maintenance

10.  Content Editing
• Original Statement: Carl is not a criminal (non-defamatory)
• Altered Statement: Carl is a criminal (defamatory) then they are
not protected by section 230.
 Interaction
• Fair Housing Council of San FernandoValley v.Roommates.com,
LLC (2008)
 Rejected
 Material Removal
• Barnes v.Yahoo,Inc.(2009)
 Promissory Estoppel

11. The Resident: Gov't gag order for the
Internet