Read carefully: Defamation was adjudicated in court, not merely alleged; defamation is NOT protected by the First Amendment; Yelp CANNOT be held liable for the defamation; Yelp does have an option: to attack the predicate (i.e., that the material is in fact defamatory) in a collateral proceeding, or to remove the defamatory material from its site.

Thus, as Chemerinsky argues, neither the First Amendment, nor Section 230, nor Yelp’s Due Process rights were violated.

If this case is struck down, then what remedy does someone who was in fact defamed have (and I mean for real — it happened, and they went to court, and they proved the material was defamatory)?

If this decision is struck down, then the defamation — which is not First Amendment protected speech, or you could never get a court to order any reIief, regardless of mode of publication — would remain online in perpetuity, and be accessible globally.

That’s just lovely, isn’t it? A tortfeasor with something to lose might take it down himself, provided his assets were within the court’s reach. A fake plaintiff might not want the material removed too quickly, in hopes of getting more money in the end. But suppose a tortfeasor can evade the judgment, in any number of ways, and the plaintiff is really and truly sincere, not wanting a wad of cash but only their well-earned reputation back? What should happen then?

No one is proposing self-censorship by Internet providers. Only a court order is sufficient to compel them to take defamatory material down. And they will NEVER be liable for money damages, certainly not, nor be required to appear before the court unless they so choose.

Of course, the French right to be forgotten is fundamental to any concept of personal liberty and individual integrity, but I don’t expect American law to see it that way. This ruling involves no right to be forgotten, only a right to have proven (i.e., proven in court) defamatory material removed from a place of continued dissemination.

Do the new Internet billionaires really have no responsibilities now? Is asking them to obey a court order, or to challenge it collaterally, too much to ask?

That sounds like Yelp is saying it doesn’t need section 230 immunity (“rights as a publisher”), and that this case is about its FA rights, and opportunity to litigate them. If so we can rely on traditional case law. Would a print newspaper be free to continue republishing a defamatory statement?