Law Commons^™

Breaking Algorithmic Immunity: Why Section 230 Immunity May Not Extend To Recommendation Algorithms, Max Del Real

Washington Law Review Online

In the mid-1990s, internet experiences were underwhelming by today’s standards, despite the breakthrough technologies at their core. When a person logged on to the internet, they were met with a static experience. No matter who you were, where you were, or how you accessed a particular website, it rendered a consistent page. Today, internet experiences are personalized, dynamic, and vast—a far cry from the digital landscape of just a few decades ago. While today’s internet is unrecognizable compared with its early predecessors, many of its governing laws remain materially unaltered. In particular, section 230 of the Communications Act, which passed …

The End Of An Era: The Uncertain Future Of Section 230 Immunity For Social Media Platforms, Lillian H. Rucker

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Major social media platforms (SMPs), such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, have become the primary means of communication for billions of people worldwide. They are the largest modern news distributors and the primary curators of online public discourse. However, the expanding influence of SMPs has led many to publicly scrutinize the content moderation decisions of such platforms, as SMPs regularly remove, block, censor, and ban user-generated content (UGC), including third-party written messages, photos, and videos, at their discretion. Because SMPs exercise immense power and are largely self-regulated, there has been growing public sentiment that SMP content moderation violates Users’ free …

A 180 On Section 230: State Efforts To Erode Social Media Immunity, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Hayley Margulis

Pepperdine Law Review

The turmoil of the 2020 presidential election renewed controversy surrounding 47 U.S.C § 230. The law, adopted as part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), shields Interactive Computer Services (ICS) from civil liability for third-party material posted on their Platforms—no matter how heinous and regardless of whether the material enjoys constitutional protection. Consequently, any ICS, which is broadly defined to include Internet service providers (ISPs) and social media platforms (Platforms), can police its own postings but remains free from government intervention or retribution. In 2022, members of the Texas and Florida legislatures passed laws aiming to limit the scope …

Reply Brief For Petitioners, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

Brief For Petitioners, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman, Daniel Weininger

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

A 180 On Section 230: State Efforts To Erode Social Media Immunity, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Hayley Margulis

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The turmoil of the 2020 presidential election renewed controversy surrounding 47 U.S.C § 230. The law, adopted as part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), shields Interactive Computer Services (ICS) from civil liability for third-party material posted on their Platforms--no matter how heinous and regardless of whether the material enjoys constitutional protection. Consequently, any ICS, which is broadly defined to include Internet service providers (ISPs) and social media platforms (Platforms), can police its own postings but remains free from government intervention or retribution.

In 2022, members of the Texas and Florida legislatures passed laws aiming to limit the scope …

There And Back: Vindicating The Listener's Interests In Targeted Advertising In The Internet Information Economy, Caitlin Jokubaitis

Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts

Targeted advertising — the process by which advertisers direct their message at a specific demographic — is neither a recent1 nor an irrational phenomenon.2 One industry executive has proclaimed it the “rare win for everyone” because it serves producers, advertisers, and consumers alike. It should be no surprise that the Information sector of the online economy — particularly new and social media platforms with robust access to consumer data — has structured revenue streams to benefit from targeted advertising. These platforms generate “substantially all of [their] revenue from advertising,” which in turn rely on active user engagement.

The Internet Information …

The Indecency Of The Communications Decency Act § 230: Unjust Immunity For Monstrous Social Media Platforms, Natalie Annette Pagano

Pace Law Review

The line between First Amendment protection and the innovation of social media platforms is hazy at best. Not only do these platforms increasingly encompass the lives of many individuals, but they provide incredible new opportunities to interact from near and far, through sharing photographs, videos, and memories. The Internet provides countless outlets that are available at the tip of users’ fingers: thriving forums to communicate nearly whenever and wherever desired. Users effortlessly interact on these platforms and are consistently exposed to numerous forms of speech, including messages through posts, chat room discussions, videos, polls, and shared statements. From 2010 to …

From Innovation To Abuse: Does The Internet Still Need Section 230 Immunity?, Benjamin Volpe

Catholic University Law Review

In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act to allow the screening of offensive material from the internet, while preserving the continued development of the internet economy without burdensome regulation. However, for years, online intermediaries have successfully used the Act as a shield from liability when third parties use their online services to commit tortious or criminal acts. This Comment argues that a wholly-unregulated internet is no longer necessary to preserve the once-fledgling internet economy. After evaluating various approaches to intermediary liability, this Comment also argues that Congress should take a more comprehensive look at consumer protection online and establish …

Cyberspace…The Final Frontier: How The Communications Decency Act Allows Entrepreneurs To Boldly Go Where No Blog Has Gone Before, Aaron Jackson

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Amend The Communications Decency Act To Protect Victims Of Sexual Exploitation, Samantha Vardaman

Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence

No abstract provided.

Taming The Internet Pitchfork Mob: Online Public Shaming, The Viral Media Age, And The Communications Decency Act, Kristine L. Gallardo

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Accompanying the explosive growth of the Internet, one lamentable trend is the rise of online public shaming. While online public shaming may positively incentivize individuals to modify their behavior in accordance with socially acceptable norms, there has also been the emergence of an online "pitchfork mob" that can have a real impact on individuals' livelihoods and overall well being. Due to the lack of legal remedies available to victims of certain types of online shaming, this Note suggests that web hosts are empowered by the expansive protections of the Communications Decency Act to develop and implement policies to curb the …

The Communication Decency Act Gone Wild: A Case For Renewing The Presumption Against Preemption, Ryan J.P. Dyer

Seattle University Law Review

Since its inception, the Internet has disseminated the most vital commodity known to man—information. But not all information is societally desirable. In fact, much of what the Internet serves to disseminate is demonstrably criminal. Nevertheless, in the effort to unbind the “vibrant and competitive free market” of ideas on the Internet, Congress enacted section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which essentially grants immunity to interactive computer service providers from liability for information provided by a third party. This Comment suggests that, in certain contexts, courts applying section 230 immunity should reexamine the preemptive effect Congress intended section 230 to …

When Retweets Attack: Are Twitter Users Liable For Republishing The Defamatory Tweets Of Others?, Daxton R. Stewart

Daxton "Chip" Stewart

Under the republication doctrine, repeating false and defamatory statements has traditionally triggered liability for the repeater. However, some confusion has emerged regarding retweeting the posts of others on Twitter, the popular microblog site. Does retweeting the defamatory statement of another open the retweeter to liability? This article examines exceptions to the republication doctrine such as the single publication rule, the wire service defense, and the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to answer this question. A review of court opinions leads to the conclusion that Section 230 of the CDA provides a powerful shield for users of interactive computer services such as …

Collateral Censorship And The Limits Of Intermediary Immunity, Felix T. Wu

Articles

The law often limits the liability of an intermediary for the speech it carries. And rightly so, because imposing liability on intermediaries can induce them to filter out questionable content and this “collateral censorship” risks suppressing much lawful, even highly beneficial, speech. The “collateral censorship” rationale has its limits, though, and correspondingly, so should the applicability of intermediary immunity. The worry with collateral censorship is not just that intermediaries censor, but that they censor more than an original speaker would in the face of potential liability. Increased censorship, in turn, is the product of applying liability targeted at original speakers …

Interactive Computer Service Liability For User-Generated Content After Roommates.Com, Bradley M. Smyer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note explores the future of interactive computer service provider (ICSP) liability for user-generated content under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) after Roommates.com II. Roommates.com II held that a housing website was not entitled to immunity under § 230 of the CDA from federal Fair Housing Act claims, in part because providing preselected answers to a mandatory questionnaire rendered the site an "information content provider" at least partially responsible for creation or development of answers. After examining the historical and legislative origins of ICSP immunity for user-generated content under 47 U.S. C. § 230, this Note argues that courts …

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.

Internet Libel And The Communications Decency Act: How The Courts Erroneously Interpreted Congressional Intent With Regard To Liability Of Internet Service Providers, Emily K. Fritts

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Protecting The E-Marketplace Of Ideas By Protecting Employers: Immunity For Employers Under Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act, Eric M.D. Zion

Federal Communications Law Journal

While we credit employers that provide employees with free Internet access, such access comes at a price to the public because employers are one of the traditional defendents in defamation suits. Complicating matters, Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act. Its section 230 provides broad federal immunity for ISPs when defamatory material of a third party is published using their services. With the passage of section 230, Congress rendered employers immune for the same tort which they are so closely associated. Some argue that employers should not be capable of invoking the immunity because it would allow employers to defame with …

Aclu V. Reno: Congress Places Speed Bumps On The Information Superhighway, Dharmesh S. Vashee

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") in an effort to regulate indecent speech on the Internet. Through the CDA, Congress sought to protect children from easily accessible, harmful materials on the Internet. In spirit, the law had noble intentions; however, on its face, the CDA raised serious constitutional questions and was immediately challenged by First Amendment advocates in ACLU v. Reno ("Reno I"). Using broad and vague terms such as "indecent" and "patently offensive," the CDA threatened to restrict adult access to a tremendous amount of speech that was constitutionally protected. Additionally, through the imposition of criminal …

Strike Two: An Analysis Of The Child Online Protection Act’S Constitutional Failures, Heather L. Miller

Federal Communications Law Journal

Congress's first attempt to regulate minors' access to sexually explicit material via the Internet failed. Congress responded with the Child Online Protection Act, which, despite its narrower scope, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. This Notes delves into the constitutionality of Congress's second attempt by addressing the difficulty of applying the vague "harmful to minors" definition to the Internet medium and the economic and technological unavailability of the Act's affirmative defenses. This Note concludes with an explanation as to why legislation is an ineffective mechanism to address the problem of minors' access to online pornography.

Zoning Speech On The Internet: A Legal And Technical Model, Lawrence Lessig, Paul Resnick

Michigan Law Review

Speech, it is said, divides into three sorts - (1) speech that everyone has a right to (political speech, speech about public affairs); (2) speech that no one has a right to (obscene speech, child porn); and (3) speech that some have a right to but others do not (in the United States, Ginsberg speech, or speech that is "harmful to minors," to which adults have a right but kids do not). Speech-protective regimes, on this view, are those where category (1) speech predominates; speech-repressive regimes are those where categories (2) and (3) prevail. This divide has meaning for speech …

"Chilling" The Internet? Lessons From Fcc Regulation Of Radio Broadcasting , Thomas W. Hazlett, David W. Sosa

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Congress included the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in the Telecommunications Act signed into law on February 8, 1996. The bill seeks to outlaw the use of computers and phone lines to transmit "indecent" material with provisions of jail terms and heavy fines for violators. Proponents of the bill argue it is necessary to protect minors from undesirable speech on the Internet. The CDA was immediately challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union, and the special 3-judge federal panel established to hear the case recently declared the Act unconstitutional. Yet, its ultimate adjudication remains in doubt. Ominously, the federal …

Regulatory Web: Free Speech And The Global Information Infrastructure, A, Victor Mayer-Schönberger, Teree E. Foster

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

National restrictions of freedom of speech on the nascent global information infrastructure are commonplace not only in the United States, but also around the globe. Individual nations, each intent upon preserving what they perceive to be within the perimeters of their national interests, seek to regulate certain forms of speech because of content that is considered reprehensible or offensive to national well-being or civic virtue. The fact that this offending speech is technologically dispersed instantaneously to millions of potential recipients strengthens the impetus to regulate.... Activists at both ends of the spectrum disregard an integral aspect of the global composition …

Free Speech In Cyberspace: Communications Decency And Beyond, Robert M. O'Neil

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

It is a great honor to be this year's Emanuel Emroch Lecturer. Though I never had the privilege of knowing Mr. Emroch, I do feel on this occasion as though I were almost an honorary member of the Emroch family. And I am deeply grateful to that family for having continued a tradition which seems to me as fitting and as appropriate a memorial as one could imagine. It is a living memorial in the best sense and it gives those who gather in the name of the person being so honored a chance not only to carry on their …

The Communications Decency Act, Jim Exon

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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.