Comments on: Catching Up on Section 230 Cases From the Past 18 Months

By: Yelp law suit

Yelp law suit — Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:27:00 +0000

C Denver
2 followers|4,797 views
C DenverShared publicly – Nov 4, 2015

Yelp Lawsuits –
False Reviews – Libel – Extortion

Kimzey v. Yelp Inc.
2015 – Pending – Federal 9th Circuit – San Francisco
https://www.scribd.com/doc/243813774/Kimzey-v-Yelp-Inc-Opening-Brief-Yelp-Lawsuits –
Redmond Mobile Locksmith / Mobile Locksmith Redmond WA –
Yelp Stock News –

Kimzey v. Yelp Inc. – Opening Brief – Yelp Lawsuits
scribd.com

By: Methaya Sirichit

Methaya Sirichit — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:54:00 +0000

Thank you Prof Goldman for updating these cases. They are all interesting. It seems that Section 230 are reaching its life cycle when a good idea start to turn bad. The 9th Cir.’s rejection of state “intellectual property” is at odd with Congress’s intention to let “home grown” moral-right-like cause of action to develop in the U.S.

Section 230 also allows intermediaries to deny that they are the “speakers” which is the position they endorse when seeking the First Amendment’s editorial privilege. I find this confusing and somewhat dishonest that an ISP can deny it is not a “content provider” but claim it is a maker of speech at the same time.

The more I read about Section 230 cases, the more I think that the European-style “right to be forgotten” is not such a bad idea. While I agree that defamation lawsuits should not prevent search engines from developing autocomplete technology. The technology should be used in a more responsible manner. The right to be forgotten only keep search engines from making stupid (or outrageous) suggestion about personal names; it doesn’t remove the information from the internet and the autocomplete tech can still be useful in other purposes. I find that the right to be forgotten is compatible with CDA’s safe harbor shielding search engines from defamation claims. Silicon Valleys firms should not be able to pull off anything they want without showing some responsibility toward information they commodify for free.

Even Americans are not happy with a law that protects only digital elites. we do need better internet governance, not just better innovation.

By: curtisneeley

curtisneeley — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:03:00 +0000

Oh my goodness... Too many cases for one post Mr Goldman Esq IMO. They all look interesting and underscore the massive misunderstanding of 47-230 by judges and professors. The section was to prevent liability for "Online" Service Providers for delivering communications just like the exceptions there are for telephone companies for harassing phone calls. The common carrier wires of phones and televisions have joined and use the same protocol without any identity requirement. Wholly anonymous communications were once alleged to be allowed The facts are "online" users are NOT anonymous. What is the title of this Act and this section? Communications Decency Act Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive materialThis was NO established so that GOOG would not be liable for snippets of porn they included and did not block. This was included to protect ISPs. The U.S. Courts are wholly responsible for the mistake of 230 and will propagate this judicial fiat until GG, Alito, and Thomas retire or die unless the LAST Amendment fixes the broken Judicial Branch. "Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996" | << There is no categorical preemption of civil damages based criminal claims where the "search engine" is the one who broke the law by failing to update their searches after notified of changes. There is no case where this was excused. Categorically stating civil claims predicated on criminal action are exempted by 230 is wholly wrong and is irresponsible.