Court Again Enjoins Anti-TikTok Executive Order–TikTok v. US
This is another ruling involving Trump’s efforts to kick TikTok and WeChat out of the United States. This court, interpreting the authorizing statute, previously partially enjoined the Secretary of Commerce’s implementation of the anti-TikTok executive order. Again relying exclusively on…
Google and YouTube Aren’t “Censoring” Breitbart Comments–Belknap v. Alphabet
Craig Belknap alleged that Google and YouTube violated the First Amendment and Section 230 by “deleting the citizen ‘Posts” that accompany and follow” Breitbart articles. (This is a pro se/in pro per suit). First Amendment. The court says “Neither Alphabet, nor…
New Ebook on Zeran v. AOL, the Most Important Section 230 Case (Techdirt Cross-Post)
[Cross-posted from Techdirt] Section 230 has become a mainstream discussion topic, but unfortunately many discussants don’t actually understand it well (or at all). To address this knowledge gap, co-editors Profs. Eric Goldman (Santa Clara Law) and Jeff Kosseff (U.S. Naval…
QAnon Conspiracy Theorists Can’t Force YouTube to Carry Their Videos–Doe v. Google
This lawsuit is peak 2020. The plaintiffs dubiously characterized themselves as “‘extremely controversial’ ‘conservative news’ channels,” and they claim YouTube tossed them overboard due to its alleged anti-conservative bias. I don’t know the word “conservative” means in the Trump era,…
Another Court Rejects Trump’s Censorial Anti-TikTok EO–Marland v. Trump
[IF YOU HAVEN’T VOTED, PLEASE DO SO. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!] This summer, President Trump issued a series of brazenly censorial executive orders trying to kick TikTok and WeChat out of the United States. The EOs claim to be curbing…
Snapchat Isn’t Liable for Its Speed Filter (Even if Section 230 Doesn’t Apply)–Maynard v. Snapchat
Snapchat’s “speed filter” allows users to overlay their speed on their content. Unsurprisingly, some users viewed this as a challenge to capture a high speed on their speed filter; and in the course of doing so, tragedy could occur. In…
Constitutional Challenge to Trump’s Anti-230 EO Fails–Rock the Vote v. Trump
[IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY DONE SO, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE!] This is one of two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s anti-Section 230 executive order from May. Because the EO said a lot (mostly lies) but did very little, the…
Yet Another Twitter Account Suspension Case Fails–Jones v. Twitter
Jones had a Twitter account @aboxoffrogs. Twitter permanently suspended the account for hateful conduct. Jones sued Twitter (pro se) for (1) defamation, (2) tortious interference, (3) aiding and abetting, (4) conspiracy, (5) ratification, (6) retraction, (7) violation of Section 230(c),…
Justice Thomas Writes a Misguided Anti-Section 230 Statement “Without the Benefit of Briefing”–Enigma v. Malwarebytes
Last year, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a plaintiff could plead around Section 230(c)(2)(B), the safe harbor for providing filtering instructions, by claiming that the filtering was motivated by anticompetitive animus. Last week, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. This isn’t…
LinkedIn Isn’t a State Actor–Perez v. LinkedIn
Perez had a LinkedIn account with over 7,000 connections (really?). LinkedIn removed some of his posts and restricted access to his profile due to alleged TOU violations. State Action. Perez, proceeding pro se, alleged that LinkedIn “is subject to the…