Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act: Why California Courts Interpreted It Correctly And What That Says About How We Should Change It, E. Alex Murcia
Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act: Why California Courts Interpreted It Correctly And What That Says About How We Should Change It, E. Alex Murcia
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA). In 1997, the United States Supreme Court struck down most of the CDA. However, section 230, which protects providers and users of interactive computer services from liability for defamatory content posted to their platforms by third parties, remains in effect. In the California and federal judicial systems, courts interpret section 230’s immunity provisions broadly—so that the statute conveys broad immunity. This Note argues that the broad application of section 230’s protections is consistent with the intent of the statute’s drafters. However, it also contends that (1) this interpretation of section 230 …
Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act: The True Culprit Of Internet Defamation, Heather Saint
Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act: The True Culprit Of Internet Defamation, Heather Saint
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review
This Note highlights the growing concern of Internet defamation and the lack of viable legal remedies available to its victims. Internet defamation is internet speech with the purpose to disparage another’s reputation. At common law, a victim of alleged defamation has the right to file suit against not only the original speaker of the defamatory statements, but the person or entity to give that statement further publication as well. In certain cases even the distributor, such as a newspaper stand, can be held liable for a defamation claim. However, liability due to defamatory speech on the Internet is quite different. …