Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reply Brief For Petitioners, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman
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 Respondents, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Robert J. Tolchin
Brief For Respondents, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Robert J. Tolchin
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Petitioners, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman
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 In Opposition, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Daniel W. Weininger
Brief In Opposition, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Daniel W. Weininger
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
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
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. …