User:$Lopez04!/Section 230

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3225774

- Zeran decision led to other lawsuits (i.e. Blumenthal suing AOL in 1998 [Court sided with AOL/Zeran decision]; Carafano v.

Metrosplash.com in 2003 [Court sided with Matchmaker.com/Zeran decision]; Batzel v.

Smith in 2003 [Court sided with Smith & MSM/Zeran decision but w/ partial descent --> editing of content made MSM an active participant instead of passive]) pg. 11-13

- Doe v. Internet Brands (pg. 23)

Early challenges – Zeran v. AOL (1997–2008)

The first major challenge to Section 230 itself was Zeran v. AOL, a 1997 case decided at the Fourth Circuit. The case involved a person that sued America Online (AOL) for failing to remove, in a timely manner, libelous ads posted by AOL users that inappropriately connected his home phone number to the Oklahoma City bombing. The court found for AOL and upheld the constitutionality of Section 230, stating that Section 230 "creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service." The court asserted in its ruling Congress's rationale for Section 230 was to give Internet service providers broad immunity "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material." In addition, Zeran notes "the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is ... staggering. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect."

This rule, cementing Section 230's liability protections, has been considered one of the most important case laws affecting the growth of the Internet, allowing websites to be able to incorporate user-generated content without fear of prosecution. However, at the same time, this has led to Section 230 being used as a shield for some website owners as courts have ruled Section 230 provides complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their systems. Through the next decade, most cases involving Section 230 challenges generally fell in favor of service providers, ruling in favor of their immunity from third-party content on their sites.

Article Draft

Early challenges – Zeran v. AOL (1997–2008)

The first major challenge to Section 230 itself was Zeran v. AOL, a 1997 case decided at the Fourth Circuit that set the foundation for how courts interpreted Section 230’s protections in the years that followed.

The case involved a person that sued America Online (AOL) for failing to remove, in a timely manner, libelous ads posted by AOL users that inappropriately connected his home phone number to the Oklahoma City bombing. The court found for AOL and upheld the constitutionality of Section 230, stating that Section 230 "creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service." The court asserted in its ruling Congress's rationale for Section 230 was to give Internet service providers broad immunity "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material." In addition, Zeran notes "the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is ... staggering. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect."

This rule, cementing Section 230's liability protections, has been considered one of the most important case laws affecting the growth of the Internet, allowing websites to be able to incorporate user-generated content without fear of prosecution. However, at the same time, this has led to Section 230 being used as a shield for some website owners as courts have ruled Section 230 provides complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their systems. Legal scholars have also criticized Section 230 for making it harder to hold platforms accountable for hosting or allowing harmful content to be shared. Through the next decade, most cases involving Section 230 challenges generally fell in favor of service providers, ruling in favor of their immunity from third-party content on their sites.

Notable Cases

Many major court cases that took place soon after the Zeran ruling ultimately followed the initial decision and its reading of Section 230. In 1998, for example, White House staffer Sidney Blumenthal sued AOL due to claims in the Drudge Report that Blumenthal abused his wife, accusing AOL of publishing defamatory statements. The Supreme Court sided with AOL, citing Section 230 and the reasoning that they “[were] nothing more than a provider of an interactive computer service on which the Drudge Report was carried.”

Another notable case was Carafano v. Metrosplash.com Inc., where Star Trek actress Chase Masterson sued Matchmaker.com after a man created a fake profile of her on the site that shared her personal information. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals sided with Matchmaker.com after ruling that they were immune under Section 230 due to the content being provided by a third party, because "Matchmaker did not play a significant role in creating, developing or 'transforming' the relevant information."

In 2003, the same year the ruling on Carafano v. Metrosplash.com Inc. was made, Ninth Circuit judges also ruled on Batzel v. Smith. Ellen Batzel, a lawyer, was accused of being in possession of artwork stolen from Jewish people during World War II via an email sent by a handyman who completed work on her house, Robert Smith; a barely revised version of the email was published on the Museum Security Network's website. The judges did not find the Museum Security Network or its operator, Tom Cremers, liable on the basis of Section 230, stating that "if Cremers 'developed' the defamatory content, he would lose § 230(c) immunity." However, they also noted that because the network had edited the contents of the email before publishing it, they were an active participant; this distinction resulted in Section 230 immunity stretching to cover platforms who actively publish potentially harmful content.