Public Citizen, EFF, CDT And CMLP Team Up To Question Recent Ruling On Section 230 Safe Harbor

from the this-is-important dept

A few weeks back, we wrote about a court ruling that said that Yahoo was protected against actions by users, thanks to Section 230 safeharbors, but that the company had effectively given up some of that protection by promising to remove some content. While the bigger issues in the case seemed to have been decided reasonably, some noticed that many of the finer points in the ruling were both sloppy and troubling. Eric Goldman ran down the details of the problems with the ruling. Now it appears that Yahoo is appealing not the major point of the case, but those specific troubling points made in the ruling, which could severely limit the effectiveness of using Section 230 to protect against frivolous lawsuits.

The issue may certainly sound like inside baseball, but it's important to anyone who runs an online service of any kind. Traditionally, when receiving a mistargeted lawsuit that tries to pin liability on a service provider, rather than the actual user, it's common to file a motion to dismiss based on section 230 safe harbors. However, in this ruling, the court said that you couldn't raise section 230 in a motion to dismiss, and that it could only be used as an "answer" and thus required a more involved (and potentially much more costly) procedure of asking the court for a ruling in the case, rather than just a dismissal. That would significantly raise the cost to many site owners in trying to dismiss these sorts of mistargeted lawsuits. It's nice to see a long list of defenders of the public and the internet sign on to explain to the court why this dicta is incorrect. Public Citizen, EFF, CDT and the Citizen Media Law Project all joined in with an amicus brief. Hopefully the court realizes the earlier sloppy ruling was a mistake, and the ability to dismiss using Section 230 safe harbors remains.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 27th, 2009 @ 6:35pm

    Why, it's good to be sad and say nothing.

    I have neither the scholar's melancholy, which is emulation, nor the musician's, which is fantastical, nor the courtier's, which is proud, nor the soldier's, which is ambitious, nor the lawyer's, which is politic, nor the lady's, which is nice, nor the lover's, which is all these: but it is a melancholy of mine own, compounded of many simples, extracted from many objects, and indeed the sundry's contemplation of my travels, in which my often rumination wraps me in a most humorous sadness.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Esahc (profile), May 27th, 2009 @ 8:06pm

    Re: Why, it's good to be sad and say nothing.

    As you like it? WTF?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 27th, 2009 @ 8:30pm

    Re: Re: Why, it's good to be sad and say nothing.

    Ah, Son. And what was Jaques' last words in said act? They are mine. I bid you good day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2009 @ 3:10am

    William Shakespeare

    I like the last act of that play. :-P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2009 @ 10:24am

    Unless a provider can point specifically to the person using their service or network and say "it isn't us, we leased / rented / provided service for this person", they should not be allowed to claim 230 status.

    Companies should be away of who uses their services, otherwise we should assume it is the company themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    DanC (profile), May 28th, 2009 @ 7:50pm

    Re:

    otherwise we should assume it is the company themselves

    Based on what logic? You make a comment attacking anonymity on the internet as an Anonymous Coward. You're either trying to be ironic, or you haven't bothered to think your position through properly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This