If you read the Complaint, you can more readily infer that there are three alternative reasons for the pleaading of the provider defendants: (i) the defamatory posts are anonymous and the plaintiffs are trying to find out who the actual posters are; (ii) the plaintiffs want the defamatory posts taken down; and (iii) GoDaddy, contrary to its supposed policy, is allowing masking sites and this is a way of telling them about the damage from enforcing its policy.
Section 230 is a change from the common law rule. So without section 230, the Complaint would be just fine. With section 230, the plaintiffs are aggressively attempting to succeed on what is otherwise a decent defamation case.
×
Email This Story
This feature is only available to registered users. You can register here or sign in to use it.
Neiditch Complaint
If you read the Complaint, you can more readily infer that there are three alternative reasons for the pleaading of the provider defendants: (i) the defamatory posts are anonymous and the plaintiffs are trying to find out who the actual posters are; (ii) the plaintiffs want the defamatory posts taken down; and (iii) GoDaddy, contrary to its supposed policy, is allowing masking sites and this is a way of telling them about the damage from enforcing its policy.
Section 230 is a change from the common law rule. So without section 230, the Complaint would be just fine. With section 230, the plaintiffs are aggressively attempting to succeed on what is otherwise a decent defamation case.