https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/03/alleged-conspiracy-among-disgruntled-ex-employees-defeats-section-230-tanisha-v-chandra.htm Sat, 02 Apr 2016 21:31:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/03/alleged-conspiracy-among-disgruntled-ex-employees-defeats-section-230-tanisha-v-chandra.htm#comment-1512 Sat, 02 Apr 2016 21:31:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=15717#comment-1512 This one strikes me as properly not dismissed. The cause of action is not seeking to treat Chandra as liable merely as a publisher of third party content, but instead alleges additional behavior – expressly vouching for it, emailing others with the defamatory statement, and entering into an agreement whose purpose was to commit defamation. Each of those is outside the scope of section 230. While the claims strike me as bogus, that’s a reason for a federal anti-SLAPP statute, not for stretching section 230 to cover these claims.

]]>