Google Isn’t Liable for Allegedly Problematic Search Results–Diez v. Google
Diez claims to be a “naturist” (note: these facts are taken from Diez’s complaint). He conducted Google image searches for the keywords “family naturist females,” “family naturist girls,” “family nudist females,” and “family nudist girls.” [PLEASE DO NOT INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATE…
CDT Lacks Standing to Challenge Trump’s Anti-230 Executive Order
In May, Trump issued an executive order designed to destroy Section 230 (EO 13925). Rather than actually work with Congress, Trump tried to amend 47 USC 230 only within the executive branch, which is largely a dead-end. I’m hoping Pres….
Justice Thomas’ Anti-Section 230 Statement Doesn’t Support Reconsideration–JB v. Craigslist
This is one of several pending cases against Craigslist for its alleged role in facilitating sex trafficking before 2010. In this case, the district court held that Section 230(c)(1) immunized the plaintiff’s state law claims. The plaintiff sought reconsideration due…
Op-Ed: Social Media Companies Should Permanently Ban Political Advertising
[This op-ed ran in the San Francisco Chronicle on December 8, 2020. I co-authored it with my colleague Irina Raicu from SCU’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Irina and I don’t agree on very much, so it’s always a mitzvah…
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…