Supreme Court Declines To Review Important 9th Circuit Section 230 Win
from the maybe-they've-learned dept
Would you believe it? We’ve got some more good news from the Supreme Court on Section 230. Remember that, before Gonzalez v. Google, a few of the Justices seemed to be begging for cases that would let them destroy Section 230. But then they (surprisingly) took the Gonzalez case, had to deal with many dozens of amici briefs explaining why 230 is so important, and seemed positively spooked when they actually realized that maybe this was more complex than they thought, leading them to punt on the issue.
But, that could still lead to more cases on Section 230. And one was teed up for them if they wanted it. Last fall, we wrote about an important Section 230 ruling in the 9th Circuit, in favor of Reddit. This was a case about FOSTA, and whether or not Reddit could be held liable under the FOSTA-created “sex trafficking” exception to Section 230. The 9th Circuit, correctly, decided that a site like Reddit still needed to be an active, rather than a passive, participant, and thus had to have knowledge of the illegal activity (which it did not have).
This case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which would have been an even cleaner case for the Court if it really was looking to cause trouble for Section 230. Yet, last Tuesday, the court denied cert in the case with no details or explanation (which is how it usually goes). Normally, there’s not much to comment on in such situations, but here it seems notable.
If the Supreme Court were still hellbent on ripping 230 to shreds, this might have been a decent case to use for that purpose. Not that it was a good case, by any means. It was a stupid case from the start. But it was well setup if the Justices were looking for another crack at destroying 230.
So, at the very least, perhaps the end result of the Gonzalez case, and all the briefing, was that the Justices who were so focused on 230 are beginning to recognize that perhaps it was much more complex than they realized, and maybe the court shouldn’t be meddling in this issue.
Filed Under: 9th circuit, fosta, knowledge, section 230, supreme court
Companies: reddit
Comments on “Supreme Court Declines To Review Important 9th Circuit Section 230 Win”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Simplicity
Or, maybe they realized that these are (c)(1) cases, which make perfect sense according to legal definitions of participation, so the previous decisions were fine. And if the justices do have an issue with Section 230, then it’s probably with (c)(2), but those types of cases weren’t on the menu.
Re:
Congratulations on hitting the battening stage of grief, bro.
Re: Re:
Bargaining*
Though I bet the words battening and grief do get used quite often in regards to your “sex life” such that it is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
While you may not understand the difference between having a judicial philosophy and handing victory to the side you like, most Supreme Court justices do. TechDirt just gets more pitiful by the day.
Re:
Look, John Smith, you’re more than welcome to bring that lawsuit and press release and expose whatever the hell you think Techdirt committed since you started making claims five years ago.
I promise the world won’t make fun of you too hard when it turns out that the only evidence you have is Masnick pissing in your bowl of imaginary oatmeal.
Re:
Well, then, don’t let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Fuck off and die, Leigh.
Re: Re: Re:
Poor little snowflake. Come onto the site, make pointless and abusive comments, and then lose your shit when those comments get the response they deserve?
Could be low blood sugar. Yell upstairs and tell your mom you’re out of cheetos.
Re: Re: Re:
You first.
I INSIST.
Re: Re: Re:
You know, for someone who keeps pissing and moaning that people make fun of him, you keep predictably returning to get angry about it. You literally keep giving traffic to a website you hate and consider insignificant in the long run, but continue feeding the exact same users you claim are nothing more than losers in their parents’ basement.
Your saviors in Prenda will not save you. The same goes for Shiva Ayyadurai.
Re: Re: Re:
lol get rekt
stay mad die mad
cope
Re: Re: Re:
It’s times like this that I find myself wishing that Torrentfreak didn’t nuke the hell out of their comment system. Always a laugh to go back and read your stupid-ass comments under the bobmail and fitta pseudonyms, then have Andrew Norton tear you apart.
Re:
Bye, Felicia~ 👋
Re: It’s not that you can eat a bag of dicks. The questions is how many dicks in that bag *are* you going to eat?
Seem like you don’t understand the difference between a just ruling and attaching your entire personality to a fairly shit left vs right philosophy.
Could the justices be slow playing their hand? They don’t seem like they are capable of it.
Re:
This is the court that struck down Roe v. Wade. If they wanted to play a hand, they’d play it and be done with it.
Re: Re:
I wonder how much of it is due to that previous ruling. On the RvW issue, the right seems to have got themselves into the classic “dog finally catches up with car, doesn’t know what to do with it” scenario. For decades, it’s been a wedge issue that’s used to galvanise a certain base into voting, even against their own interests in some cases so long as this issue was at the forefront.
But, the reaction to its repeal has been just as galvanising to the left (and middle), with some unexpectedly red areas moving to protect abortion rights locally, an upturn in voting leading to a poor result for the right at the midterms (if not an overall defeat), and ammunition for future opposition as some of the more horrific and indefensible examples of the downside of banning abortion are coming to light.
It strikes me that they’re a little more wary of unintended consequences at the moment, especially with the scandals rocking the court at the moment. All but the most rabid fools understand on some level that a huge amount of the current online US economy depends on section 230, either directly or indirectly, and I doubt that almost nobody on the court truly understands the technology. They might not be ready to take another wild swing at the moment, as the consequences for making the wrong move could be very severe.
That’s not to say they won’t in future, but I dare say that this is simply not the case or the time in which they’d want to touch another controversial ruling.
I know the war on Section 230 is far from over at this point, but I’m starting to feel a little less despair about the future of Section 230. So, a minor win I guess?
‘maybe the court shouldn’t be meddling in this issue’. about time some sense came in! trouble is, it cant help itself! it has to interfere with things it doesn’t understand, much like the heads of the entertainment industries and the govt officials who always supply backing (for a price, of course!)