Davelaw’s Techdirt Profile


About Davelaw

Davelaw’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 23rd, 2019 @ 7:32pm

    Re: Re:

    Denial of cert was all but inevitable. Medytox v. Investorshub.com was denied cert by the USSC in 2015. Medytox sued for an order for takedown for content that was ostensibly found to be defamatory in a different court in adjudicated proceedings, not a default. The Florida courts held that section 230 precluded the action. That is the outcome Hassell was trying to avoid by not suing Yelp, and that tactic wasn’t lost on the higher courts.

  • Feb 17th, 2018 @ 7:32pm

    Re: Re:

    Saying that Facebook “caved” suggests that they had a choice, either ignore the ruling or abide by it. At least they limited their response to taking it down only the territory within that court’s jurisdiction. What If this “crap” order came from a U.K. or French court that found content to be defamatory under that country’s laws even though no U.S. court would have done so? Would Facebook be “caving” if it took down the content from publication only in those countries? No. It happens just like that thousands if not tens of thousands of times every day.

  • Feb 17th, 2018 @ 1:35pm

    (untitled comment)

    These companies do not exist in a vacuum. The article states that Facebook simply geo fenced access to the content to comply with a court order of that country. That is exactly what many other U.S. websites do in similar situations, as they should. Indeed, Google does that in response to the European right to be forgotten, which is the proper way to handle it, versus the way CNIL wants it done, which expects worldwide takedown. While these websites might be immune from liability in the United States, that does not necessarily immunize thier operations outside the United States. If the people of France, Russia, Europe or any other territory don’t like what their laws or how Courts are acting, it’s up to them to change the laws in those countries. In any event, doesn’t give US companies the right to unilaterally ignore the law within those countries.

  • Oct 8th, 2016 @ 4:55am


    "Forget section 230, and go have a look at laws for pimping and "living off the avails of prostitution". There is a point where clear knowledge of what is going on makes section 230 irrelevant - it cannot overrule other existing laws."

    Except that is exactly what section 230 expressly does; it preempts ("overrules") any contrary state law claim, e.g., any clam that would impose liability on the website that arises from third-party content.

    (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

    (3) State law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

    Has the California anti-SLAPP statute ever been used in a criminal case? The State cannot prove the requisite "probability of success" of their action because the claims are expressly barred by Section 230. A dismissal and fee burden shift would make these misguided AGs think twice before trying to pull a stunt like this again.

  • Mar 27th, 2016 @ 6:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: A simple yet costly solution for a complex problem.

    Google is immunized in the USA by the CDA and SPEECH Act. However, even if they removal all of their physical and financial assets from France, CNIL could try and get a monetary judgment enforced in some other EU country where Google has assets. Ultimately, you could see Google telling CNIL and the rest of the cooperating EU to pound sand by removing all operations and assets from the EU, and making all content on Google available to everyone in the EU since US courts would not enforce their judgments,

  • Mar 16th, 2016 @ 1:57pm

    Poor effort from a 3L

    The lawsuit was doomed before it was ever docketed. He sued the wrong party, and his feeble attempts to plead around 230 were pathetic. It was a waste of Facebook's time and the court's time and resources. He should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous action that was barred by settled law, but will escape it since he filed pro se.

  • Feb 14th, 2016 @ 6:40am

    Re: Companies who ignore the past are bound to repeat it

    "As such anything short of that will be considered not good enough, and they will demand even more so long as they can."

    It's a dead end now. GEO filtering is what Google should have done in the first place, which is what many other U.S. websites do in order to deprive would-be plaintiffs of foreign legal jurisdiction. In most of these cases the content isn't actionable and in any event Google is immunized by the CDA.If the posts are no longer accessible from IPs in the EU, it's a dead end for them; they would have to sue in someplace where they are accessible, actionable and that has personal jurisdiction over the parties. Of course, anyone can circumvent GEO filtering by piping through a proxy that isn't located in a filtered jurisdiction, but in doing so they effectively teleporting themselves out of the EU and into the proxy's jurisdiction. Which is why the EU's efforts were doomed from the start. The law would not allow them to force the removal of this non-actionable content at the source, so they stupidly tried to make Google their proxy.

    Don't blame Google or similarly situated websites for this. They do not exist in a vacuum and should respect the laws of other countries to the fullest extent possible within those jurisdictions. This is the right thing to do, and if the citizens of those countries don't like it they can and should address it with their policy makers and legislators.