Comments on: Wisconsin Appeals Court Blows Open Big Holes in Section 230–Daniel v. Armslist https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/04/wisconsin-appeals-court-blows-open-big-holes-in-section-230-daniel-v-armslist.htm Sat, 08 May 2021 00:24:32 +0000 hourly 1 By: Recapping a Year’s Worth of Section 230 Cases That Got Stuck in My Blogging Queue – Technology & Marketing Law Blog https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/04/wisconsin-appeals-court-blows-open-big-holes-in-section-230-daniel-v-armslist.htm#comment-2110 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:24:15 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=18640#comment-2110 […] case is a great extension of Dyroff v. Ultimate Software, but the subsequent Daniel v. Armslist ruling creates a lot of FUD in future cases like this. My blog post on the prior ruling in this […]

]]> By: Eric Goldman https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/04/wisconsin-appeals-court-blows-open-big-holes-in-section-230-daniel-v-armslist.htm#comment-2102 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:40:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=18640#comment-2102 In reply to David S. Gingras.

I didn’t mention it because I focused more on the even more relevant prior Armslist case. But yes, 100% relevant. This court would have discounted the case because it wasn’t a Wisconsin court or US Supreme Court precedent. SMH.

]]> By: David S. Gingras https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/04/wisconsin-appeals-court-blows-open-big-holes-in-section-230-daniel-v-armslist.htm#comment-2101 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 21:20:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=18640#comment-2101 So is there any reason that no one mentioned or cited Gibson v. Craigslist, 2009 WL 1704355 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)? Some blogger mentioned it once, I think — https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/06/47_usc_230_can.htm

Yeah, 2009 was eons ago when the USA was still great, but the Gibson case had basically identical facts and exactly the opposite result?

]]>