Law Commons^™

Reaching Through The “Ghost Doxer:” An Argument For Imposing Secondary Liability On Online Intermediaries, Natalia Homchick

Washington and Lee Law Review

Imagine you have decided to run for office, to speak out publicly against an injustice, to enter the job market, or even to join a new online forum. Now, imagine after starting your chosen endeavor, you go online to discover that someone who disagrees with your position posted your personal information on the internet and called for others to harass you. To make matters worse, you realize that you cannot determine who posted your personal data. You have been doxed. Because you cannot identify the person who posted your information, where can you turn for recourse? The next logical party …

Community Development Authorities, Andrew A. Painter

University of Richmond Law Review

Today, CDAs of varying sizes and purposes have been authorized by at least fourteen Virginia localities, and approximately twenty have issued bonds." Despite progress, CDAs occupy anarea of Virginia law largely in its infancy. Case law directly related to their use remains limited, and many localities remain uncertain about their use since the unique marriage of private development and public power inherent in the CDA process has, at times, fostered controversy and apprehension. While this article does not directly address the public policy implications of using CDAs to finance infrastructure, the author hopes this review will generate further ideas for …

An Interpretive Framework For Narrower Immunity Under Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act, Gregory M. Dickinson

Gregory M Dickinson

Almost all courts to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act have construed its ambiguously worded immunity provision broadly, shielding Internet intermediaries from tort liability so long as they are not the literal authors of offensive content. Although this broad interpretation effects the basic goals of the statute, it ignores several serious textual difficulties and mistakenly extends protection too far by immunizing even direct participants in tortious conduct.

This analysis, which examines the text and history of Section 230 in light of two strains of pre-Internet vicarious liability defamation doctrine, concludes that the immunity provision of Section 230, though …

The Never-Ending Limits Of § 230: Extending Isp Immunity To The Sexual Exploitation Of Children, Katy Noeth

Federal Communications Law Journal

In 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas extended civil liability to Yahoo! under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act so that it could not be sued for knowingly profiting from a Web site where members exchanged sexually explicit pictures of minors. The court found that the reasoning of the seminal § 230 case, Zeran v. AOL, was analogous and that policy considerations mandated its holding.

This Note argues that a multifaceted approach is needed to prevent future courts from following that decision, including an amendment to § 230 that would impose civil liability upon …

Rethinking The Communications Decency Act: Eliminating Statutory Protections Of Discriminatory Housing Advertisements On The Internet, James D. Shanahan

Federal Communications Law Journal

The recent decision in Craigslist signals a drastic reduction in the effectiveness of the prohibition on discriminatory housing advertisements under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives blanket immunity to Internet Content Providers from publisher liability for content originating from third parties. One of the effects of this immunity is the creation of a monopoly for discriminatory advertisements otherwise proscribed by the FHA. This Note argues that the simplest solution for Congress is to adjust the language of § 230 by adding the FHA to the list of exceptions to statutory immunity.

The Legislative History Of Senator Exon's Communications Decency Act: Regulating Barbarians On The Information Superhighway, Robert Cannon

Federal Communications Law Journal

Among the most visible and controversial provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have been those of an amendment to the larger act known as the Communications Decency Act. This article critically examines the legislative history of this amendment, creating a record of both official and unofficial sources. The article also notes the relevance of the legislative history as demonstrating both the unconstitutionality and the practical inefficacy of the statute.