Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com Amicus Brief - by Online Service Providers

8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com Amicus Brief - by Online Service Providers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-amicus-brief-by-online-service-providers 1/39

Case No.13-5946

INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS

FORTHESIXTHCIRCUIT

SARAHJONES

P l a i n t i f f/Appellee,

v s .

DIRTYWORLDENTERTAINMENTRECORDINGS LC

e t a l .

Defendants/Appellants

On pp eal from h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court

f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t of entuckyCase No. 9-CV-219-WOB i s t r i c t Court Judge William O. ertelsman

AMICUSCURIAEBRIEFBYONLINESERVICEPROVIDERS

BRUCE .H.JOHNSON

JAlV~S C.GRANT

~ 1 . 1 V I B I K A K.DORAN

DAVISWRIGHTTREMAINELLP

1201 Third Avenue, u i t e 2200

S e a t t l e Washington 98101

T e l : (206) 22-3150

Fax: (206) 57-7700

THOMAS .BURKE

DAVISWRIGHTTREMAINELLP

505 Montgomery t r e e t S u i t e 80 0

San r a n c i s c o C a l i f o r n i a 94111

T e l : (415) 76-6500

Fax: (415) 76-6599

JOHN .GREINER

NICHOLAS . ZIEPFEL

GRAYDON HEAD ITCHEYLLP

1900 i f t h Thi rd Center

511 Wal nut t r e e t

C i n c i n n a t i OH 5202-3157

T e l : (513) 29-2731

Fax: (513) 51-3836

JAMESROSENFELD

DAMSWRIGHTTREMAINELLP

1633 Broadway, 7th Floor

New ork,NY 0019

T e l : (212) 89-8230

Fax: (212) 89-8340

Attorneys o r Amici Curiae Advance u b l i c a t i o n s I n c . Amazon.com, n c .

Awo n c . Buzzfeed, n c . Cable News etwork, n c . Curbed.com LLC

Gawker Media,LLC agazine u b l i s h e r s of merica, n c .

T h e McClatchy Company, he e p o r t e r s Committee o r Freedom of h e P r e s s

TripAdvisorLLC ahoo n c . and Yelp n c .

1

Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 1



CORPORATEDISCLOSURESTATEMENT

Pursuant o S i x t h C i r c u i t Rule 2 6 . 1 Amici Advance P u b l i c a t i o n s n c .

Amazon.com, n c . Awo n c . Buzzfeed, n c . Cable News Network, n c .

Curbed.com LLC awker Media,LLC agazine P u b l i s h e r s of America, n c .

The McClatchy Company, The R e p o r t e r s Committee f o r Freedom of h e P r e s s

T r i p A d v i s o r LLC ahoo n c . and Yelp I n c . m a k e t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c l o s u r e s :

Adv a n c e u b l i c a t i o n s n c . ; Awo n c . ; Buzzfeed, n c . ; Cu r bed.com LLC;

G a w k e r Media,LLC; a g azin e Publishers of America, n c . ; Th e Reporters

Commit t ee for F r e e dom of the P r e s s ; Yahoo n c . ; a n d Yelp Inc.

1 . I s s a i d p a r t y a s u b s i d i a r y o r f f i l i t e of a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n ? No .

2 . I s t h e r e a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a p p e a l t h a t has a

f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e outcome? Not o t h e knowledge of a i d p a r t y .

Amazon.com, nc.

1 . I s s a i d p a r t y a s u b s i d i a r y o r f f i l i t e of a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n ?

Amazon.com, n c . i s a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n .

2 . I s t h e r e a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a p p e a l h a t has a


2




The McClatchy ompany

I s s a i d p a r t y a u b s i d i a r y o r a f f i l i a t e of u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n ? The

McClatchy Company s a u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n .

2 . I s t h e r e a u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n not a a r t y t o t h e a p p e a l t h a t has a


Cable News Network n c .

1 . I s s a i d p a r t y a u b s i d i a r y o r a f f i l i a t e of u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n ? Yes.

Cable News etwork n c . i s a wholly owned u b s i d i a r y of Turner r o a d c a s t i n g

System n c . which s a wholly owned u b s i d i a r y of Time Warner n c . a u b l i c l y

t r a d e d c o r p o r a t i o n .



TripAdvisorLL

I s s a i d p a r t y a u b s i d i a r y o r a f f i l i a t e of u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n ?

Yes. T r i p A d v i s o r LL s a u b s i d i a r y of r i p A d v i s o r n c . T r i p A d v i s o r I n c . i s

p u b l i c l y t r a d e d .



j




TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page

I . INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE 1

I I . AUTHORITYTO ILE 1

I I L INTRODUCTION ND L ~ ` v I l V I A R Y OF RGLJIVMENT 1

IV. ARGUMENT 4

A. Congress Intended S e c t i o n 230 o Promote Free Speech o n h e

I n t e r n e t and Encourage Online S e r v i c e Providers o P o l i c e

C o n t e n t 4

B. S e c t i o n 230 Provides Broad Immunit y o Online S e r v i c e Providers

f o r Claims Based on Third- P a r t y Content 6

C . The i s t r i c t Court i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d P r i o r Cases o I n t e r p r e t

S e c t i o n 230 Immunity More e s t r i c t i v e l y Than Any ther o u r t . . . . . .9

D The i s t r i c t C o u r t s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Threatens to S t r i p Online

S e r v i c e Providers of e c t i o n 230 Immunity Based on Common

and Laudable r a c t i c e s 1 6

1 . Exercising T r a d i t i o n a l E d i t o r i a l Functions 16

2 . Failing o Remove l l e g e d l y Unlawful Content f t e r Notice..17

3 . Focus on n t i r e Website Rather than S p e c i f i c C o n t e n t 18

4 . Website Name 21

S . I n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h CommonLaw efamation 22

6 . I m p l i c i t l y Adopting Third Part y Content . 23

E. The i s t r i c t C o u r t s Unprecedented n t e r p r e t a t i o n of e c t i o n 230

Threatens Speech Across the n t e r n e t 24

i




TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

Cases

Pages)

A s c e n t i v e LLC Opinion Corp.,

842 F. Supp. 2d 450 E.D.N.Y. 2011) : 22

A t l a n t i c Recording Copp. v . Project l a y l i s t I n c .

603 F. Supp. 2d 690 S.D.N.Y. 2009) 13

Batzel v . Smith,

333 F.3d 1018 9th C i r . 2003) p a s s i m

B e n Ezra, W e i n s t e i n o. v . Am. nline n c .

206 F.3d 980 10th C i r . 2000) 4, 11

Ca~afano v . Met~osplash, n c .

339 F.3d 1119 9th C i r . 2003) 6, 8, 19,23

Chicago Lawyers Comm. o r C i v i l Rights Under Law,

519 F.3d 666 7th C i r . 2008) 10

Doe . MySpace, n c .

528 F.3d 413 5th C i r . 2008) 6, 23

Doe . MySpace, n c .

629 F. Supp. 2d 663 E .D . Tex. 2009) 13

Doe . SexSea~ch. o m ,

551 F.3d 412 6th C i r . 2008) 8

Eckert . Microsoft Copp.,

2007WL 96692 E.D. Mich. Feb. 13,2007) 9

Energy Automation S y s . I n c . v . X c e n t r ° i c V e n t u r e s LLC,

2007WL 557202 M.D. enn. May 5, 2007) 9

Fair Housing Council o f an Fernando V a l l e y v . Ro o m ma tes .co m LLC,

521 F.3d 1157 9th C i r . 2008) en banc p a s s i m

i i




Federal TNade Commission v . Accusearch,

570 F.3d 1187 10th C i r . 2009 p a s s i m

Gentry . Ebay, n c . ,

99 al. App. th 816, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703 002) 19

Global o y a l t i e s , L t d . v . Xcentric V e n t u r e s , LLC,

544 F. Supp. 2d 929 D. Ariz. 2008) 22

Goddard . Google, n c . ,

640 . Supp. 2d 1193(N.D. Cal. 2009) 13

GW quity LLC . X c e n t r ~ i c VenturesLLC,

2009WL 2173 N.D. Tex. an. 009 22

Hill . StubHub, n c . ,

727 S.E.2d 550 N.C. App. 2012) 8, 15,20

Johnson v . Aden,

614 .3d 785(8th C i r . 2010) 7, 10

Jones . Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, L.L.C.

766 F. Supp. 2d 828 E.D. Ky. 011) 9, 17, 19

Jones . Duty World Entertainment Recordings, L.L.C.,

840 F. Supp. 2d 1108(E.D.Ky. 012) p a s s i m

Jones . Dirty World Entertainment ecordings, L.L.C.,

2013WL 068780 E.D. Ky. u g . 12,2013) p a s s i m

L e v i t t v . Yelp n c . ,

2011 WL 079526 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26,2011) 26

M.A. . V i l l a g e Voice Media Holdings,LLC,

809 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (E.D.Mo. 011) 17

Nemet h e v r o l e t , Ltd. . Consumeraffairs.com, n c . ,

591 F.3d 250 4th C i r . 2009) 6,8

Parisi . S i n c l a i r ,

774 F. Supp. 2d 310 D.D.G 2011) 24

i i i




Reno . American C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Union,

521 U.S. 844 1997) 2,27

S . C. . Duty W o r l d , LLC,

2012W 335284 W.D. Mo. ar. 12, 012) 1 9 , 22

Seaton . T~ipAdviso~, LLC,

728 F.3d 592 6 t h C i r . 2013) 8

S h i a m i l i v . Real s t a t e Group ofNew o r k , I n c . ,

17 N.Y.3d 281, 52 N.E.2d 1011 N.Y. 011) 15

Snyder . Phelps,

131 S. t . 1207, 179 L. d. d 172 2011) 21

S p e i s e r v . Randall,

357 U.S. 513 1958) 27

S t r a t t o n Oakmont, n c . v . Prodigy e r v i c e s C o . ,

1995 W 23710 N.Y. up. t . May 4, 1995) 4

United t a t e s v . Playboy n t . Group, n c . ,

529 U.S. 803 2000) 2 1

Universal Comm n y s . , Inc. . Lycos, n c . ,

478 .3d 413 l s t C i r . 2007) 7, 8, 17

Whitney n f o . Network . X c e n t r i c V e n t u r e s , LLC,

2008 W 50095 M.D. l a . Feb. 15,2008) 19,22

Ze~an . Am. n l i n e , I n c . ,

129 .3d 327 4th i r .1997) p a s s i m

Constitution and Statutes

U.S. onst.,Amend. 2, 1

47 .S.C.§230 p a s s i m

iv




Other Authorities

S. Conf. Rep. No . 104-230 1996) 4

E- o~R E NTENTLAw .05 L L D S i i ] 9

u




I . INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE

Amici r e w e b s i t e s , news r g a n i z a t i o n s , technology companies, and s e a r c h

engines h a t host and d i s s e m i n a t e m i l l i o n s o f o s t s and o t h e r c o n t e n t authored by

u s e r s every d a y . l As n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s , they have a t r o n g i n t e r e s t i n

p r e s e r v i n g the p r o t e c t i o n s o f e c t i o n 230 o f h e Communications Decency Act

CDA ) , 47 .S.C.§ 30, o r themselves and h e i r u s e r s , c o n s i s t e n t with

Congress's i n t e n t t o promote h e robust r e e flow o f n f o r m a t i o n o n h e I n t e r n e t . 2

I I . AUTHORITYTO ILE

Appellee has d e c l i n e d t o consent o h e f i l i n g o f h i s b r i e f . Amici have

c o n c u r r e n t l y f i l e d a motion o r leave o f i l e t h i s b r i e f .

I I I . INTRODUCTION NDSUMM RYOF RGUMENT

The n t e r n e t has e f f e c t e d one o f he g r e a t e s t expansions of r e e speech and

communications n h i s t o r y . I t i s a o o l f o r b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r t h e small

c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f i l l i o n s o f eople and making them m a t t e r . 3 Today, more than

2.7 i l l i o n people use h e I n t e r n e t , s u b m i t t i n g and viewing hundreds o f i l l i o n s o f

Amore e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f he Amici and h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d

by h e underlying l a w s u i t i s contained in E~ibit o t h e c o n c u r r e n t l y f i l e d motionf o r leave o f i l e t h i s b r i e f .

2 Pursuant o Fed. R. App. . 9 ( c ) ( 5 ) , no a r t y ' s counsel a u t h o r e d t h i s b r i e f n

whole or n p a r t . No erson o t h e r than Amici or h e i r counsel c o n t r i b u t e d money

t h a t was intended t o fund h e p r e p a r a t i o n or submission o f h i s b r i e f .

3 Lev Grossman, You —Yes, You —Aye IME's Person o f h e Year, I l V ~

MAGAZI~ Dec. 25, 006).




p o s t s , comments, h o t o s , v i d e o s and o t h e r c o n t e n t e v e r y d a y . 4 As h e Supreme

Court put t , t h e c o n t e n t on h e I n t e r n e t i s a s d i v e r s e a s human h o u g h t . Reno v .

American C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Union,521 U.S. 844 1997).

T h i s i s no a c c i d e n t . I n 1996, o promote h e f r e e flow of n f o r m a t i o n on h e

I n t e r n e t , Congress e s o l v e d t o p r o t e c t w e b s i t e s and o t h e r o n l i n e p r o v i d e r s from

s t a t e-law i a b i l i t y f o r t h e i r u s e r s ' c o n t e n t . S e c t i o n 230 of h e Communications

Decency Act embodies h a t command, r o h i b i t i n g t r e a t i n g such a p r o v i d e r a s t h e

p u b l i s h e r or s p e a k e r of h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t o r h o l d i n g i t l i a b l e f o r t a k i n g s t e p s t o

s c r e e n such m a t e r i a l . 47 .S.C.§ 30. Grounded i n c o r e F i r s t Amendment

s t a n d a r d s , S e c t i o n 230 f f e r s s t r o n g p r o t e c t i o n f o r i n n o v a t i o n and e x p a n s i o n of

f r e e speech on h e I n t e r n e t . S i n c e i t s e n a c t m e n t , e d e r a l a n d s t a t e c o u r t s have

i n t e r p r e t e d i t t o p r o v i d e broad immunity o p r o v i d e r s f o r c l a i m s stemming from

u s e r c o n t e n t .

The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e p a r t e d from h i s w e l l- e s t a b l i s h e d p r e c e d e n t , a p p a r e n t l y

b e c a u s e of t s d i s t a s t e f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' w e b s i t e , TheDirty.com. The c o u r t found

t h a t t h e law does not u p p l a n t c o m m o n law d e f a m a t i o n r u l e s , y e t t h a t i s e x a c t l y

4 n t e r n a t i o n a l Telecommunications Union, 013 ICT a c t s Figures,

h t t p ://www.itu. n t/ e n / I T U - S t a t i s t i c s / D o c u m e n t s/ f a c t s/ I C T F a c t s F i g u r e s 2 0 13 p d f ;

Pew esearch C e n t e r ,Pew n t e r n e t and American i f e P r o j e c t ,

h t t p :// p e w i n t e r n e t . o r g / R e p o r t s /2011/ S o c i a l -Networking-S i t e s . a s p x (as of 011,

65 f n l i n e a d u l t s used s o c i a l n e t w o r k i n g s i t e s ; DOMO, ow Much ata s

Created Every Minute? h t t p ://w w w . domo .com/b l o g / 2 0 1 2/06/how-much- d a t a - i s -

c r e a t e d -e v e r y - minute/? d k w=socf3

2




what Congress chose t o d o . The c o u r t s u g g e s t e d t h a t a w e b s i t e can be i a b l e j u s t

b e c a u s e i t s e l e c t s p o s t s t o p u b l i s h , does not e r i f y t h e i r a c c u r a c y , and a i l s t o

remove them upon o t i c e . But h e s e a r e a l l p u b l i s h e r f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n S e c t i o n

230's s c o p e . The c o u r t a l s o found a w e b s i t e may be i a b l e merely b e c a u s e o f t s

n a m e and t e n o r , b u t t h e c a s e law p r o h i b i t s h o l d i n g a p r o v i d e r l i a b l e f o r i m p l i c i t l y

encouraging o n t e n t . U l t i m a t e l y , t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d S e c t i o n 2 3 0 only

provides] r o t e c t i o n f o r s i t e owners w h o l l o w p o s t i n g s by h i r d p a r t i e s w i t h o u t

s c r e e n i n g them and t h o s e w h o remove o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t . 2 0 1 3 W 068780, t

*3 Aug. 2 , 2013). But h i s i s n o t what e c t i o n 2 3 0 a y s . T h i s s t a n d a r d d i r e c t l y

c o n t r a v e n e s C o n g r e s s ' s i n t e n t , and i f t i s u p h e l d , p r o v i d e r s w i l l have t h e p e r v e r s e

i n c e n t i v e n o t o review t h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t a t a l l f o r f e a r o f i a b i l i t y .

Eight i r c u i t s have e n f o r c e d t h e s e c o r e S e c t i o n 2 3 0 r o t e c t i o n s . This Court

n o w has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e i n f o r c e t h e same l e a r g u i d a n c e about h e l a w ' s b r o a d

immunity. At bottom, h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n upends h a t g u i d a n c e ,

imposing i n s t e a d t h e n e b u l o u s view t h a t i f a udge o r u r y f i n d s a w e b s i t e i s

s o m e h o w o f f e n s i v e and e n c o u r a g e s u s e r s t o submit o n t e n t , t h e w e b s i t e p r o v i d e r

l o s e s immunity. This would t h r e a t e n o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a c r o s s t h e I n t e r n e t

and s i g n i f i c a n t l y c h i l l o n l i n e s p e e c h . S e c t i o n 2 3 0 e q u i r e s u s t t h e o p p o s i t e .




IV. ARGUMENT

A. Congress Intended S e c t i o n 230 to Promote Free Speech on the

Internet and Encourage Online Service Providers to o l i c e Content.

In e n a c t i n g S e c t i o n 230, ongress had two e x p r e s s g o a l s . F i r s t , t sought o

encourage t h e u n f e t t e r e d and u n r e g u l a t e d development of r e e speech on h e

I n t e r n e t , and o promote h e development of -commerce. Batzel . Smith,333

F.3d 1018, 1027 9th C i r . 2003); ee also Ben zra, Weinstein, o. . Am

Online n c . , 206 F.3d 980, 85 . 3 (10th C i r . 2000) S e c t i o n 230 s meant t o

promote freedom of peech ) ; 47 U.S.C.§ 3 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) S e c t i o n 230 s i n t e n d e d

t o p r e s e r v e t h e v i b r a n t and c o m p e t i t i v e f r e e market h a t p r e s e n t l y e x i s t s f o r t h e

I n t e r n e t . ) . Second, t hoped o encourage s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s t o s e l f-r e g u l a t e t h e

d i s s e m i n a t i o n of f f e n s i v e m a t e ri a l over h e i r s e r v i c e s . Z e r ~ a n v Am n l i n e , I n c . ,

129 F.3d 327,331 (4th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ; see a t z e l , 333 F.3d a t 1028 c i t i n g 47 U.S.C.

§ 3 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , and 141 Cong. ec. H8469- 7 0 ) .

Congress made h e s e g o a l s m a n i f e s t i n o v e r r u l i n g S t r a t t o n Oakmont, n c . v .

Prodigy e r v i c e s Co., 1995 WL 23710 N.Y. Sup. t . May 4, 9 9 5 ) , a a s e

h o l d i n g o n l i n e s e r v i c e Prodigy i a b l e f o r defamatory comments o s t e d by a s e r t o

one of t s b u l l e t i n b o a r d s . See S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230 1996) e x p r e s s i n g i n t e n t

t o o v e r r u l e S t r a t t o n Oakmont and any t h e r s i m i l a r d e c i s i o n s ) . Because Prodigy

a c t i v e l y s c r e e n e d and e d i t e d b u l l e t i n board messages o p r e v e n t o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t ,

t h e c o u r t a p p l i e d common aw p u b l i s h e r ( r a t h e r than d i s t r i b u t o r ) p r i n c i p l e s ,




meaning h a t Prodigy c o u l d be l i a b l e f o r p o s t s even f t d i d not know o r have any

r e a s o n t o know h e y were d e f a m a t o r y . I d . a t *5.

By v e r r u l i n g t h i s r e s u l t , Congress e l i m i n a t e d t h e grim choice such a u l e

would p r e s e n t t o o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s , . e . t h o s e t h a t v o l u n t a r i l y f i l t e r c o n t e n t

would be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l p o s t s , w h i l e p r o v i d e r s t h a t bury h e i r heads n t h e

sand and g n o r e p r o b l e m a t i c p o s t s would e s c a p e l i a b i l i t y a l t o g e t h e r . Fair

Housing Council o f a n F e r nan d o V a l l e y v . R o o m m a t e s . c o m LLC 21 F . 3 d 1157,

1 163 9 t h C i r . 2008) en b a n c ) ; see a l s o B a t z e l , 333 F.3d a t 1029 If f f o r t s t o

review and omit h i r d- p a r t y d e f a m a t o r y , obscene o r i n a p p r o p r i a t e m a t e r i a l make a

computer s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r o r u s e r l i a b l e f o r p o s t e d s p e e c h , , h e n w e b s i t e o p e r a t o r s

and n t e r n e t s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a r e l i k e l y t o abandon f f o r t s t o e l i m i n a t e such

m a t e r i a l from t h e i r s i t e [ s ] . ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ) .

S e c t i o n 230 e c o g n i z e s t h e I n t e r n e t ' s pr a c t i c a l r e a l i t i e s . I n t e r a c t i v e

computer s e r v i c e s have m i l l i o n s o f s e r s [and h e ] am ou n t o f n f o r m a t i o n

communicated . . . i s . . . s t a g g e r i n g . Zeran, 129 F.3d a t 331. I t i s simply

i m p o s s i b l e f o r o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s t o s c r e e n a l l o f h e i r u s e r c o n t e n t . I d .

S e c t i o n 230 h e r e f o r e sought o p r e v e n t l a w s u i t s from s h u t t i n g d ow n w e b s i t e s and

o t h e r s e r v i c e s o n h e I n t e r n e t , B a t z e l , 333 F.3d a t 1028, and t d i d so by b a r [ r i n g ]

s t a t e- l a w p l a i n t i f f s from h o l d i n g i n t e r a c t i v e computer s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s l e g a l l y

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n f o r m a t i o n c r e a t e d and developed by h i r d p a r t i e s , Ne m e t

5




ChevNOlet, Ltd. v . Consume~affai~s.com, n c . , 591 F.3d 250,254 4th Cir. 2009).

The p e c t e r o f o r t l i a b i l i t y in a n area o f such p r o l i f i c sp eech wou l d h a v e an

obvious c h i l l i n g e f f e c t , because faced with p o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i t y f o r e a c h message

republished . . . , providers mig ht choose to severely r e s t r i c t t h e n u m b e r a n d type o f

messages posted. Z e r a n , 129 F.3d a t 331.

Section 230 l s o r e f l e c t s t h e r e a l i t y t h a t some aterial posted on h e I n t e r n e t

m i gh t b e offensive or harmful. But ongress made choice t h a t , while i n j u r e d

p a r t i e s may ue t h e users who reated the content, t h e y may ot sue t h e i n t e r a c t i v e

compu ter s e r v i c e t h a t enabled users to publish the content. See, e . g . , Doe .

M y S p a c e , n c . , 528 F.3 d 413,419 5th C i r . 2008) finding s o c i a l networking s i t e

immune or claims p r emised o n sexual a s s a u l t r e s u l t i n g f r o m online meeting);

C a~afano v . Met~osplash, n c . , 339 .3 d 1119, 1123 (9th C i r . 2003) m a t c h m a k i n g

website immune r o m claims s t e m m i n g f r o m fake p r o f i l e t h a t led to t h r e a t s made

against the p l a i n t i f f , whom user h a d impersonated); Ze~an, 129 F.3 d a t 331(AOL

immune or publishing f a l s e advertisements created b y users a n d f a i l i n g to r e m o v e

t h e m p r omp tly e v e n t h ough p l a i n t i f f received death t h r e a t s as a r e s u l t ) .

B. Section 230 r o v i d e s Broad Immunity o O n l i n e Service P r o v i d e r s for

C l a i m s Ba s e d on T h i r d-Part y C ont en t .

Section 230 t a t e s : No rovider or user o f a n n t e r a c t i v e c o m p u t e r s e r v i c e

s h a l l be t r e a t e d as the publisher or speaker o f a n y information provided b y another

information content provider. 47 . S . C .§ 30(c)(1). Courts h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s

D




language t o c r e a t e a t h r e e - p a r t t e s t , under which a d e f e n d a n t i s imm u n e i£ (1) t i s

a p r o v i d e r . . . of an n t e r a c t i v e computer e r v i c e , (2) h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m t r e a t s i t

a s t h e p u b l i s h e r o r s p e a k e r of n f o r m a t i o n , a n d (3) h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r o v i d e d

by a n o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e n t p r o v i d e r . S e e B a t z e l , 333 F.3d a t 1037; U n i v e r s a l

Comm'n y s . , I n c . v . Lycos, n c . , 478 F.3d 413,418 1 s t C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) .

There i s n o d i s p u t e i n t h i s c a s e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s s a t i s f i e d t h e f i r s t t wo

p a r t s of h i s t e s t . I n s t e a d , t h e p l a i n t i f f a r g u e d , a n d t h e c o u r t a g r e e d , t h a t t h e

d e f e n d a n t s were t h e m s e l v e s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e n t p r o v i d e r [ s ] f o r t h e a l l e g e d l y

d e f a m a t o r y p o s t s . S e c t i o n 230 d e f i n e s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e n t p r o v i d e r a s a n y

p e r s o n o r e n t i t y t h a t s r e s p o n s i b l e , n whole o r i n p a r t , f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o r

development of n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h r o u g h t h e I n t e r n e t o r any o t h e r i n t e r a c t i v e

computer s e r v i c e . 47 U.S.C.§ 300(3).

C o n s i s t e n t w i t h C o n g r e s s ' s i n t e n t , [ t ] h e m a j o r i t y of e d e r a l c i r c u i t s have

i n t e r p r e t e d t h e CDA o e s t a b l i s h b r o a d f e d e r a l immunity o any c a u s e of c t i o n t h a t

would make e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s l i a b l e f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o r i g i n a t i n g w i t h a t h i r d - p a r t y

u s e r of h e s e r v i c e . Johnson v . A r d e n ,614 F.3d 785, 791 8 t h C i r . 2010) i n t e r n a l

q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; Lycos,478 F.3d a t 418 c o u r t s t h a t have a d d r e s s e d t h e s e

i s s u e s have g e n e r a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d S e c t i o n 230 immunity b r o a d l y ) . Perhaps

more m p o r t a n t h e r e , n t r e a t i n g S e c t i o n 230 immunity a s q u i t e r o b u s t , c o u r t s

have a d o p t [ e d ] a e l a t i v e l y e x p a n s i v e d e f i n i t i o n of i n t e r a c t i v e computer e r v i c e '




and a e l a t i v e l y r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n content r o v i d e r . ' Carafano,

339 F.3d a t 1123 § 230(c) rovides broad immunity o r p u b l i s h i n g c o n t e n t

provided p r i m a r i l y b y h i r d p a r t i e s ) . 5

To a t e , s o m e 300 e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n s have construed S e c t i o n 230, and [ a ] 1 1

but a handful . . f i n d t h a t t h e website s e n t i t l e d t o immunity from i a b i l i t y . H i l l

v . StubHub, n c . , 727 S.E.2d 550, 558 N.C. A p p . 2012). Eight i r c u i t c o u r t s have

found o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s exem p t f rom l i a b i l i t y under S e c t i o n 230 n a l l but

t w o cases d i s c u s s e d below). The S i x t h C i r c u i t has t a t e d t h a t S e c t i o n 230 r o t e c t s

websites from i a b i l i t y f o r u s e r c o n t e n t , Seaton v . T r i p A d v i s o r , LLC 28 F.3d 592,

599 6th C i r . 2013), but has not e t a p p l i e d t h e law, ee Doe . SexSearch.com,551

F.3d 412, 15 6th C i r . 2008) d e c l i n i n g t o reach h e q u e s t i o n of hether the

[CDA] r o v i d e s [defendant] wi th immunity from s u i t ) . H o w e v e r , i s t r i c t c o u r t s

in h i s C i r c u i t have recognized h e [ n ] e a r -unanimous case l a w n f o r c i n g S e c t i o n

230 immunity o r o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a g a i n s t s u i t s seeking o hold t h em i a b l e

f o r t h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t . E cker t . Microsoft Copp., 2007W 96692, t *3 E.D.

5 Moreover, e c t i o n 230 r e a t e s an immunity rom u i t r a t h e r than a m er e defense

to i a b i l i t y and t i s e f f e c t i v e l y l o s t i f a case s e r r o n e o u s l y p e r m i t t e d t o g o o t r i a l .

N e m e t h e v r o l e t , 591 F.3d a t 254 i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ; emphasis n

o r i g i n a l ) ; Roommate s.c om, 521 F.3d a t 1 175 Section 230 mu s t be n t e r p r e t e d t o

p r o t e c t w e b s i t e s not merely from u l t i m a t e l i a b i l i t y , but from having to f i g h t c o s t l y

and p r o t r a c t e d l e g a l b a t t l e s . ) . Thus, o u r t s should apply S e c t i o n 230 at h e

e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e s t a g e of h e c a s e . . . . N e m e t h e v ~ ^ o l e t , 591 F.3d a t 255.




Mich. Feb. 13, 007); ee also Energy Automation y s . , Inc. . Xcent~ic V e n t u r e s ,

LLC, 007WL 557202, t * 2 n.6(M.D. enn.May 5, 007).

C. The i s t r i c t Court Mischaracterized Prior Cases to Interpret Section

230 mmunityMore estrictively Than Any ther Court.

The i s t r i c t court departed s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h i s c l e a r precedent,finding

i n s t e a d t h a t the defendants did not have immunity under Section 230 o r a l l e g e d l y

defamatory user posts becaus e they helped develop o n t e n t . 6 I n so finding, he

court appl[ied] a standard for eva lua ting development h a t [ i s ] broader than a ny

c i r c u i t court has ever recognized. 3 -C o l v I l V i E R C B &INTERNETLAw

3 .05 3]D]i i ] Jones . . l i k e l y would have been decided d i f f e r e n t l y by other

c o u r t s . . . . )

The i s t r i c t court s s e r t e d t h a t i t s r u l i n g represents the weight o f u t h o r i t y ,

2 0 1 3 WL 068780, t * , but h a t i s simply not r u e . For example, t c i t e d cases

from the Seventh and Eighth C i r c u i t s t h a t upheld Section 230 mmunity, but

focused on h e i r d i c t a . More i g n i f i c a n t l y , the court misconstrued a sta tement in

6 The ourt declined to apply Section 230 mmunity four times. See Jones . Dirty

World Entertainment ecordings, . L . C . , 7 6 6 F. Supp. d 828,836 E.D.Ky.

2011) denying motion o d i s m i s s ) ; 840 F. upp. d 1 008 2012) denying motion

f o r summary udgment); Case No. :09- c v -00219-WOB-CJS, kt. 188 Apr. 18,

2013) denying second summary udgment o t i o n ) ; and 2013 WL 068780 Aug.

12, 013) post t r i a l supplemental o p i n i o n denying e f e n d a n t s ' motion o r

judgment as a a t t e r o f aw under Fed. . Civ.P. 0 ) .

e e , e . g . , 2013 WL 068780, t * ( d i s c u s s i n g Chicago Lawyers'Comm. og

C i v i l R i g h t s Under Law, 1 9 F.3d 666, 71 7th C i r . 2008), n which h e Seventh

E




the Tenth C i r c u i t ' s opinion in Federal Trade Commission v . Accusea~ch,570 F.3d

1187, 1199 10th C i r . 2009), h a t to be ` r e s p o n s i b l e ' for the development o f

o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t , o n e must be m o r e than a n e u t r a l conduit f o r t h a t c o n t e n t . T h e

d i s t r i c t court read i n t o t h i s quote a r~equi~ement h a t an o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' s

conduct be neutral to r e t a i n Section 230 immunity, t a t i n g t h a t a provider can

a v a i l i t s e l f o f Section 2 30 only if i t s ] conduct was n e u t r a l with respect to the

o f f e n s i v e n e s s o f h e c o n t e n t . 2013 W 068780, t 2 emphasis added) quoting

Accusea~ch,570 F.3d a t 1199).

Until now, o c o u r t has ever held t h a t a website must be a purely n e u t r a l

conduit for t h i r d - p a r t y content and l o s e s Section 230 mmunity i f t s e l e c t s ,

reviews, d i t s or f a i l s t o r e m o v e o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t . This i s p r e c i s e l y the r e s u l t

Congress sought o avoid. Secti on 230 r o t e c t s and encourages o n l i n e s e r v i c e

providers to review, d i t , and block c o n t e n t . S e e Zeran, 129 F.3d a t 330 lawsuits

seeking to hold a s e r v i c e provider l i a b l e f o r i t s e x e r c i s e o f a p u b l i s h e r ' s t r a d i t i o n a l

e d i t o r i a l functions —suc h as deciding whether t o publish, withdraw, postpone or

a l t e r content —are barred ) ; see also Ben Ezra, 206 F.3d a t 986; a t z e l , 3 3 3 F.3d a t

C i r c u i t held C r a i g s l i s t immune or a l l e g e d l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y housing ads, bu t

focusing o n the c o u r t ' s c o m m e n t h a t [n]othing in the s e r v i c e c r a i g s l i s t o f f e r s

induces anyone t o post any p a r t i c u l a r l i s t i n g or express a p r e f e r e n c e f o r

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ); d . a t 2 discussing Johnson v . Aden, 1 4 F.3d a t 792, and

acknowledging t h a t the Eighth C i r c u i t upheld . . . immunity, but focusing o n i t s

comment h a t [ t ] h e record c o n t a i n s n o evidence t h a t [the I n t e r n e t s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ]

designed i t s website to be a p o r t a l f o r defamatory c o n t e n t ) .

10




1031. See also 47 .S.C. § 30(c)(1) p r o h i b i t i n g treatment o f nline s e r v i c e

provider as publisher o f nformation provided b y a h i r d p a r t y ) .

To i n d o t h e r w i s e , the d i s t r i c t court e l i e d a l m o s t n t i r e l y o n m i s a p p l i c a t i o n s

o f he N in t h a n d Tenth C i r c u i t s d e c i s i o n s in R o o m m a t e s . c o m , 521 F.3d 1157, a n d

Accusea~ch,570 .3d 1187, ee 840 F. Supp. 2 d a t 1 0 1 0-11; 2 0 1 3 WI, 068780, t

- 2 , the only c i r c u i t court cases d e c l i n i n g to apply Section 2 3 0 i m m u n i t y o n the

b a s i s t h a t o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n developing unlawful c o n t e n t .

Bu t he f a c t s a n d holdings o f hese cases d o n o t support the c o u r t s conclusion.

R o o m m a t e s . c o m concerned a website designed to m a t c h p r o s p e c t i v e

r o o m m a t e s . One o r t i o n o f he s i t e r e q u i r e d u s e r s to a n s we r questions b y m a k i n g

s e l e c t i o n s f r o m d r o p- d o w n m e n u s , ncluding q u e r i e s a b o u t h e i r gender, exual

o r i e n t a t i o n , a n d whether they w o u l d bring c h i l d r e n i n t o the household.

R o o m m a t e s . c o m , 521 F.3d a t 1160. T h e s i t e a l s o r e q u i r e d u s e r s to s p e c i f y whether

they w o u l d p r e f e r t o l i v e with s o m e o n e based o n the s a m e c r i t e r i a a n d c r e a t e d

p r o f i l e pages s e a r c h a b l e b y the c r i t e r i a . I d . Two o u s i n g g r o u p s sued

R o o m m a t e s . c o m , rguing t did o n l i n e w h a t a e a l e s t a t e agent could n o t lawfully

d o n person, . e . f a c i l i t a t e the r e n t a l o f o u s i n g b a sed o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y f a c t o r s .

R o o m m a t e s . c o m argued t h a t Section 2 3 0 provided i m m u n i t y f r o m these

claims, bu t the Ninth C i r c u i t disagreed because, t found, s to c e r t a i n o f t s

f e a t u r e s , t h e s i t e w a s responsible . . . f o r the c r e a t i o n o r development o f he

11




a l l e g e d l y u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t . See 47 U.S.C.§ 300(3). The o u r t h e l d t h a t a

w e b s i t e h e l p s t o d e v e l o p u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t , and h u s f a l l s w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n t o

S e c t i o n 230, f t c o n t r i b u t e s m a t e r i a l l y t o t h e a l l e g e d i l l e g a l i t y o f h e c o n t e n t .

I d . a t 1 168 emphasis d d e d ) . Roommates.com d i d t h i s , t h e c o u r t found, e c a u s e i t

a u t h o r e d q u e s t i o n s d e s i g n e d t o e l i c i t d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r e f e r e n c e s and r e q u i r e d u s e r s

t o answer them. I d . a t 1166. By e q u i r i n g s u b s c r i b e r s t o p r o v i d e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

a s a o n d i t i o n of c c e s s i n g i t s s e r v i c e , and by p r o v i d i n g a i m i t e d s e t of r e -

p o p u l a t e d a n s w e r s , t h e c o u r t w r o t e , Roommate becomes m u ch more than a

p a s s i v e t r a n s m i t t e r of n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by t h e r s ; t becomes h e d e v e l o p e r , a t

l e a s t i n p a r t , of h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . I d . (emphasis a d d e d ) .

As h e Ninth C i r c u i t emphasized, h e c r u x of t s d e c i s i o n was h e s i t e ' s

Yequirement h a t u s e r s submit l l e g e d l y u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t t o i t s s i t e . $ Courts

a p p l y i n g Roommates.com have i n t e r p r e t e d i t t h e same w ay—as c a r v [ i n g ] out n l y

a narrow e x c e p t i o n t h a t t u r n e d e n t i r e l y on h e w e b s i t e ' s d e c i s i o n t o f o r c e

s u b s c r i b e r s t o d i v u l g e p r o t e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r e f e r e n c e s a s a

See, . g . , 521 F.3d a t 1167 Roommate d e s i g n e d i t s s e a r c h s y s t e m . . . based on

t h e p r e f e r e n c e s and p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t Roommate t s e l f f o r c e s

s u b s c r i b e r s t o d i s c l o s e . ) ; i d . a t 1 170, . 2 6 i t i s Roommate h a t f o r c e s u s e r s t o

e x p r e s s a p r e f e r e n c e and Roommate h a t f o r c e s u s e r s t o d i s c l o s e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

t h a t can form t h e b a s i s of i s c r i m i n a t i o n by t h e r s . ) ; i d . a t 1 172 Roommate does

not merely p r o v i d e a framework h a t c o u l d be u t i l i z e d f o r p r o p e r o r improper

p u r p o s e s ; r a t h e r , Roommate's work n d e v e l o p i n g t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y q u e s t i o n s ,

d i s c r i m i n a t o r y answers and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e a r c h mechanism i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o

t h e a l l e g e d i l l e g a l i t y of h e s i t e . ) .

12




c o n d i t i o n of s i n g i t s s e r v i c e s . Goddard . Google, n c . , 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193,

1201-02 N.D. a l . 2 0 0 9 ) ; see a l s o A t l a n t i c Recording Corp. . P r o j e c t P l a y l i s t ,

I n c . , 603 F . Supp. 2d 690, 01 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) f i n d i n g Roommates.com r e a d i l y

d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e b e c a u s e i t was based s o l e l y on h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o n t e n t on h e

w e b s i t e t h a t was i s c r i m i n a t o r y was u p p l i e d b y Roommates.com t s e l f ' ) ; oe .

MySpace, n c . , 629 F. Supp. 2d 663,665 E.D. Tex. 2009) d i s t i n g u i s h i n g

Roommates. om b e c a u s e [ t ] h e Ninth C i r c u i t r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d . . . t h a t t h e

Roommates.com w e b s i t e required t s u s e r s t o p r o v i d e c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n a s a

c o n d i t i o n of t s u s e . . . . (emphasis a d d e d ) ) .

At h e same i m e , t h e Roommates. om c o u r t emphasized h a t c o u r t s must not

r e a d t h e term develop so b r o a d l y a s t o s a p S e c t i o n 230 of t s meaning: I t ' s t r u e

t h a t t h e b r o a d e s t s e n s e of h e term ` d e v e l o p ' c o u l d i n c l u d e . . . j u s t about any

f u n c t i o n performed b y a w e b s i t e . But o r e a d t h e term so b r o a d l y would d e f e a t t h e

p u r p o s e s of e c t i o n 230 by swallowing up v e r y b i t of h e immunity h a t t h e

s e c t i o n o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e s . I d . a t 1 167.

E v e n more e l e v a n t h e r e , t h e Ninth C i r c u i t found Roommates.com was

immunerom c l a i m s stemming from a i f f e r e n t p a r t of t s w e b s i t e , a e c t i o n f o r

u s e r s t o p r o v i d e A d d i t i o n a l Comments. Roommates.com was not e s p o n s i b l e ,

i n whole o r i n p a r t , f o r t h e development of h i s c o n t e n t , b e c a u s e t h e w e b s i t e could

not review e v e r y p o s t , making t p r e c i s e l y t h e k i n d of i t u a t i o n f o r which s e c t i o n

13




230 was designed o provide immunity. I d . The l a i n t i f f s contended h e s i t e

e n c o u rag e d u b s c r i b e r s t o make i s c r i m i n a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e Additional

Co m m e n ts i e l d because t r e q u i r e d t h e s e l e c t i o n o f i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r e f e r e n c e s i n

t s r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e s s . I d . a t 1174. The Ninth C i r c u i t r e j e c te d t h i s argument an d

emphasized h a t t h e o r i e s o f i m p l i c i t encouragement woul d gut e c t i o n 230:

[T]here w i l l always b e l o s e c a s e s where a l e v e r lawyer could argue

t h a t something h e website o p e r a t o r d i d encouraged h e i l l e g a l i t y .

Such c l o s e c a s e s , we e l i e v e , must be e s o l v e d i n favor o f mmunity,

l e s twe

ut h e h e a r t out o f e c t i o n 230 b y o r c i n g w e b s i t e s t o f a c ed e a t h b y e n thousand d uck- b i t e s , f i g h t i n g off laims h a t they

p r o m o t e d o r encouraged — or t l e a s t t a c i t l y a s s e n t e d — o t h e i l l e g a l i t y

o f h i r d p a r t i e s . Whe r e t i s very c l e a r t h a t t h e website d i r e c t l y

p a r t i c i p a t e s i n developing h e a l l e g e d i l l e g a l i t y — as t i s c l e a r here

with e s p e c t t o Roommate's u e s t i o n s , answers and h e r e s u l t i n g

p r o f i l e pages — i mmun ity i l l b e o s t . ut n c ases o f nhan c e m e n t

b y m p l i c a t i o n o r d e v e l o p m e n t by inference —such as wit h e s p e c t t o

the Additional Co m m e n ts e r e — s e c t i o n 230 must b e n t e r p r e t e d t o

protect e b s i t e s not merely fr om u l t i m a t e l i a b i l i t y , but fr om having o

f i g h t c o s t l y and r o t r a c t e d l e g a l b a t t l e s .

I d . a t 1 174-75 emphasis added) . Contrary o the Ninth C i r c u i t ' s holding n

Roommates. o m , h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t decided h a t a e b s i t e can b e i a b l e a s a o n t e n t

developer merely because t i m p l i c i t l y encourages s e r s t o post f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t .

In A ccusea~ch, h e defendant p e r a t e d a website h a t o f f e r e d t o s e l l

i n d i v i d u a l s ' p r i v a t e telephone r e c o r d s , a l l e g e d l y i n v i o l a t i o n or unlawful

circumvention o f h e Telecommunications Act. 570 F.3d t 1 192. Accusearch

invoked S e c t i o n 230, arguing h a t t o b t a i n e d the e c o r d s fr om h i r d- p a r t y

r e s e a r c h e r s t h i r e d , but h e Tenth C i r c u i t r e j e c t e d t h i s argument. I d . a t 1191.

1 4




Alluding to Roommates. om, t found h a t [b]y paying t s r e s e a r c h e r s t o a c q u i r e

telephone r e c o r d s , kn ow i n g the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f he records was p r o t e c t e d b y law,

i t c o n t r i b u t e d m i g h t i l y to the unlawful conduct. I d . a t 1200. At he h e a r t o f he

c o u r t ' s decision was t s f i n d i n g t h a t [ a ] c q u i s i t i o n o f h i s information w o u l d almost

i n e v i t a b l y r e q u i r e someone to v i o l a t e the [law]. I d . a t 1192. See also H i l l , 727

S.E.2d a t 561 (reading Roommates.com and Accusea~ch to r e q u i r e t h a t an o n l i n e

provider e f f e c t i v e l y c o n t r o l the content posted b y . . t h i r d p a r t i e s or take o t h e r

a c t i o n s which e s s e n t i a l l y ensure the c r e a t i o n o f unlawful m a t e r i a l t o l o s e Section

230 immunity); Shiamili v . Real Estate G r o u p o fNew York, n c . , 17 N.Y.3d 281,

290,952 N.E.2d l ol l (N.Y. 2011) r e f u s i n g t o i n t e r p r e t Accusea~ch to c r e a t e an

exception to immu n i t y where defendants created and ran a Web i t e which

i m p l i c i t l y encouraged u s e r s to post n e g a t i v e comments ) .

The d i s t r i c t court here ignored the holding o f ccusea~ch and mistakenly

l a t c h e d o n to one t a t e m e n t : We h e r e f o r e conclude h a t a e r v i c e provider s

` r e s p o n s i b l e ' for h e development o f f f e n s i v e content only f t in some way

s p e c i f i c a l l y encourages the development o f what s o f f e n s i v e about the c o n t e n t .

840 F. Supp. 2 d a t 1011 (quoting Accusearch,570 F.3d a t 1 1 9 9 ) . The court

i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s t o mean h a t a website s be y o n d Section 230 r o t e c t i o n s i f the s i t e

i s o f f e n s i v e and encourages u s e r s t o post c o n t e n t . That s n o t h a t Accusea~ch

15




h e l d , t i s not what S e c t i o n 230 t a t e s , and n o c o u r t has e v e r a d o p t e d such a

sweeping e x c e p t i o n t o S e c t i o n 230 immunity.

D The D i s t r i c t Court's I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Threatens t o S t r i p Online S e r v i c e

Providers o f e c t i o n 230 Im m u n i t y Based o n Common n d Laudable

P r a c t i c e s .

I n i t s o p i n i o n s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p o i n t e d t o s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t h a t p u r p o r t e d l y

e s t a b l i s h e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s encouraged f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t and t h u s were n o t

e n t i t l e d t o S e c t i o n 230 immunity. In t s o r d e r denying d e f e n d a n t s ' motion f o r

judgment s a m a t t e r o f aw, t summarized:

T h i s Court h o l d s by r e a s o n o f h e v e r y n a m e o f h e s i t e t h e ma n n e r n

which t i s managed, and t h e p e r s o n a l c o m m e n t s o f e f e n d a n t R i t c h i e ,

t h e d e f e n d a n t s have s p e c i f i c a l l y encouraged development o f what s

o f f e n s i v e about h e c o n t e n t o f h e s i t e .

840 F. Supp. 2d a t 1012. T h i s i l l - d e f i n e d encouragement e s t i s based o n a c t o r s

t h a t c a n n o t d e f e a t S e c t i o n 230 immunity and would undermine t s v e r y p u r p o s e .

1 . Exercising T r a d i t i o n a l E d i t o r i a l Functions.

The d i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded t h a t d e f e n d a n t s a r e c o n t e n t p r o v i d e r s b a s e d o n

t h e man ne r n which t h e w e b s i t e ] was managed, x p l a i n i n g :

R i t c h i e a c t s a s e d i t o r o f h e s i t e and s e l e c t s a m a l l p e r c e n t a g e o f

s u b m i s s i o n s t o be p o s t e d . He dds a t a g l i n e . . . . He e v i e w s t h e

p o s t i n g s but does n o t v e r i f y t h e i r a c c u r a c y . . . . I f s o m e o n e o b j e c t s t o

a p o s t i n g , he d e c i d e s i f t s h o u l d be removed.

840 F. Supp. 2d a t 1012.

But, s d i s c u s s e d above, Con gress e x p r e s s l y i n t e n d e d S e c t i o n 230 o

p r e s e r v e and promote o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s ' r i g h t s t o e x e r c i s e t h e s e t r a d i t i o n a l

1 6




e d i t o r i a l f u n c t i o n s . See supra S e c t i o n IV.C. In s e l e c t i n g , reviewing, d i t i n g , an d

deciding whether o i n c l u d e c o n t e n t , w e b s i t e s a c t a s p u b l i s h e r s and x p r e s s l y have

immunity under S e c t i o n 230 w h e n doing s o . S e c t i o n 230, by t s terms, r e c l u d e s

t r e a t i n g o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s as a publisher or speaker o f h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t .

47 .S.C. § 30(c)(1) emphasis added); see Ze~an, 129 F.3d a t 330.

2 . Failing o Remove llegedly Unlaw ful Content f t e r N o t i c e .

The i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o r e p e a t e d l y noted h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f complain ed about

p o s t s but e f e n d a n t s did not remove them. See 840 F. Supp. 2d t 1009 After

i n i t i a l l y r e c e i v i n g a response s t a t i n g t h a t t h e web s i t e w o u ld remove h e p o s t ,

p l a i n t i f f w a s o l d t h a t the post w o u ld not be remov ed. ) , i d . a t 1010 A g a i n

p l a i n t i f f emailed h e w eb s i t e r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e p o s t s be removed, but her e q u e s t s

were g n o r e d . ) ; see l s o 766 F. Supp. 2d t 830- 3 1 .

To h e e x t e n t the d i s t r i c t c o u r t viewed h e f a i l u r e t o remove p o s t s a s a a s i s

f o r denying S e c t i o n 230 mmunity, t again e r r e d . As h e F i r s t C i r c u i t s t a t e d , [ i ] t

i s , by n o w , ell s t a b l i s h e d t h a t n o t i c e o f h e unlawful a t u r e o f he information

provided s not enough o m a ke t t h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' s own peech. Lycos, 478

F.3d a t 420; ee l s o Ze~an ,l 29 F.3d a t 333; M.A. . V i l l a g e Voice Media

Holdings, LLC 09 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1051 E.D. Mo. 011), [E]ven f a e r v i c e

p r o v i d e r k n o w s h a t t h i r d p a r t i e s a r e p o s t i n g i l l e g a l c o n t e n t , h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' s

f a i l u r e t o i n t e r v e n e i s immunized. i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ) .

i ~ J




N o t i c e - b a s e d l i a b i l i t y a l s o r u n s d i r e c t l y c o u n t e r t o t h e p u r p o s e s of e c t i o n

230. I f h e law r e q u i r e s p r o v i d e r s e i t h e r t o remove u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t o r r i s k

l i a b i l i t y , n o t i c e of o t e n t i a l l y u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t would r e q u i r e a e g a l judgment . .

and an on-t h e - s p o t e d i t o r i a l d e c i s i o n whether o r i s k l i a b i l i t y by a l l o w i n g t h e

c o n t i n u e d p u b l i c a t i o n of h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , g i v i n g p r o v i d e r s a n a t u r a l i n c e n t i v e

simply t o remove messages upon n o t i f i c a t i o n , whether h e c o n t e n t s were

[ u n l a w f u l ] o r n o t . Zeran, 129 F.3d a t 3 3 3 . 9

3 . F ocu s on EntiYe Website Rather than S p e c i f i c C o n t e n t .

The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o c o n s i s t e n t l y f o c u s e d on t s view t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s

c r e a t e d , d e v e l o p e d , o r m a t e r i a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d t o d e v e l o p i n g t h e c o n t e n t of

TheDirty.com w e b s i t e a s a whole, a t h e r t h a n t h e s p e c i f i c p o s t s t h e p l a i n t i f f

c h a l l e n g e d . See, . g . , 840 F. Supp. 2 d a t 1011 The p r i n c i p a l c o n t e n t of t h e

d i r t y . c o m ' web i t e i s not o n l y o f f e n s i v e but o r t i o u s . ) ; d . a t 1012 [T]he

d e f e n d a n t s . . . ` s p e c i f i c a l l y encourage development of what s o f f e n s i v e about h e

c o n t e n t ' of t h e d i r t y . c o m ' web i t e . ) ; 2013 W 068780, t *3 [ D ] e f e n d a n t s

h e r e r e c e i v e d p o s t i n g s on h e i r w e b s i t e which would be a c t i o n a b l e even by a u b l i c

f i g u r e , . e . , t h a t t h e y were knowingly a l s e o r i n r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e t r u t h .

) .

n t h i s r e g a r d , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n s put n l i n e p r o v i d e r s i n a Catch 22. I f a

p r o v i d e r reviews and b l o c k s u s e r c o n t e n t , t can be h e d e v e l o p e r of h a t c o n t e n t .

But f t f a i l s t o t a k e d o w n c o n t e n t a f t e r someone c o m p l a i n s , h a t t o o makes t a

developer u t s i d e S e c t i o n 2 3 0 r o t e c t i o n s .




This approach c o n t r a d i c t s e s t a b l i s h e d law holding t h a t o n l i n e s e r v i c e

p r o v i d e r s can be l i a b l e only f o r d i r e c t l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c r e a t i n g , r e q u i r i n g , o r

developing the p e c i f i c content that s unlawful. For example, n S . C. v . Dirty

World, LLC, 012WL 335284(W.D.Mo. a r . 12,2012), n o t h e r f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t

c o u r t dismissed defamation claims a g a i n s t TheDirty.com under S e c t i o n 230,

d i s t a n c e [ d ] i t s e l f ' f rom t h e Jones c o u r t ' s narrow i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o fCD

immunity, a n d h e l d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f could not h a l l e n g e t h e w e b s i t e as a whole

because the CD ocuses o n h e s p e c i f i c post a t i s s u e . I d . a t *4. I t found: As

m a t t e r o f law, a n d even i f r u e , merely encouraging defamatory p o s t s i s not

s u f f i c i e n t t o d e f e a t CDA mmunity . I d . ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . See a l s o Whitney

I n f o . Network v . X c e n t r ~ i c V e n t u r e s , LLC, 008 WL 50095, t * 2(M.D. l a . Feb.

15,2008) T h e i s s u e . . . i s whether Defendants a r e r e s p o n s i b l e , i n whole or i n

p a r t , f o r t h e c r e a t i o n or development o f he a r t i c u l a r postings e l a t i n g t o

[ P l a i n t i f f ) t h a t a r e t h e s u b j e c t o f h i s l a w s u i t . (emphasis a d d e d ) ) ; Ca~afano, 339

F.3d a t 1125 noting t h e key i s s u e i s whether t h e o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r c r e a t e d

or developed the p a r t i c u l a r i n f o r m a t i o n a t i s s u e ) ; Gentry Ebay, n c . , 99 a l .

A p p . 4th 816,833, . l 1 , 121 C a l . R p t r . 2d 703 2002) T h e c r i t i c a l i s s u e i s

whether eBay a c t e d as an i n f o r m a t i o n content p r o v i d e r with r e s p e c t to t h e

information t h a t a p p e l l a n t s claim i s f a l s e o r m i s l e a d i n g . )

[ L ~




Likewise, n H i l l v . Stubhub, 727 S.E.2d a t 550, a r i a l c o u r t held t h a t t h e

t i c k e t exchange website Stubhub was not e n t i t l e d t o S e c t i o n 230 immunity because

t found t h e w e b s i t e as a w h o l e promoted t i c k e t s c a l p i n g . But h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

r e v e r s e d , concluding t h a t t h e ` e n t i r e w e b s i t e ' approach w a s a t a l l y flawed.

Indeed, both c a s e s the d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r i n c i p a l l y r e l i e d u p on — Roommates. o m and

Accusearch —make l a i n t h a t o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s l o s e S e c t i o n 230 r o t e c t i o n s

only i f they d i r e c t l y c r e a t e or develop t h e s p e c i f i c content a l l e g e d t o b e unlawful.

See Roommates .com, 521 F.3d a t 1174 immunity i s l o s t w h er e the website

d i r e c t l y pa r t i c i p a t e s i n developing t h e a l l e g e d i l l e g a l i t y ) ; Accusea~ch, 570 F.3d a t

1 199 provider i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r u s e r c o n t e n t only i f t . . . s p e c i f i c a l l y encourages

t h e dev el opment o f what s o f f e n s i v e about h e c o n t e n t )

In t h i s c a s e , as t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t noted, h e p l a i n t i f f u l t i m a t e l y d e c l i n e d t o

pursue [ t h e ] t a g l i n e [added b y defendant R i t c h i e , s t a t i n g Why r e a l l high school

t e a c h e r s f r e a k s i n the sack? ] as an independently a c t i o n a b l e s t a t e m e n t . . . . 2013

W 068780, t *4. Rathe r th an focus o n whether h e content R i t c h i e a d m i t t e d l y

c r e a t e d was defamatory (o r p r o t e c t e d opinion or h e t o r i c ) , t h e c o u r t mistakenly

analyzed whether d e f e n d a n t s ' website a s a w h o l e w a s o f f e n s i v e .

This e n t i r e l y s u b j e c t i v e approach no t only c o n t r a d i c t s t h e law, t puts a l l

o n l i n e p r o v i d e r s a t r i s k f o r allowing or encouraging p r o v o c a t i v e , c o n t r o v e r s i a l , or

n e g a t i v e c o n t e n t , s u b j e c t t o the v a g a r i e s o f hether a u dge or jury w i l l d e e m t h e

20




s i t e o r some of t s c o n t e n t o f f e n s i v e . Yet, s t h e long h i s t o r y of h e F i r s t

Amendment e a c h e s , speech cannot be e s t r i c t e d simply because t i s u p s e t t i n g or

a r o u s e s contempt. Snyder . P h e l p s , 131 S. t . 1207, 1219, 179 L. d. d 17 2

(2011). Quite h e o p p o s i t e , i m p o r t a n t p r i n c i p l e s a r e born from speech h a t some

may o n s i d e r shabby, f f e n s i v e , o r even g l y . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Playboy n t .

Group, n c . , 529 U.S. 803, 2 6 2000).

4 . W e b s i t e Name.

The i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded h a t t h e name of h e s i t e i n and of t s e l f

[TheDirty.com] encourages h e p o s t i n g only of d i r t , t h a t i s m a t e r i a l which s

p o t e n t i a l l y defamatory o r a n n v a s i o n of h e s u b j e c t ' s p r i v a c y . 840 F. upp. d a t

1012; see l s o 2013 W 068780, t *3 t h e evidence c o n c l u s i v e l y d e m o n s t r a t e s

t h a t t h e s e p o s t i n g s and o t h e r s l i k e them w e r e i n v i t e d and encouraged by h e

d e f e n d a n t s b y s i n g t h e name D i r t y . c o m ' ) . But o u r t s have r e p e a t e d l y r e j e c t e d

c l a i m s a g a i n s t w e b s i t e s whose na mes might l l e g e d l y i n v i t e n e g a t i v e c o n t e n t , such

a s PissedConsumer.com, ipoffReport.com, Badbusinessbureau.com, nd even

TheDirty.com.

In S.C. . D u t y W o r l d , LLC , 0 1 2 W 335284, h e c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h i ssame

argument with r e s p e c t t o TheDirty.com because t h e CD o c u s e s on h e s p e c i f i c

c o n t e n t a t i s s u e and not h e name of e b s i t e . I d . See l s o A s c e n t i v e , LLC .

Opinion C o p p . , 842 F. Supp. d 450, 7 5-76 E.D.N.Y. 0 1 1 )

21




(PissedConsumer.com was not i a b l e f o r u s e r review, even though t i n v i t e d o t h e r s

t o submit and prominently d i s p l a y e d n e g a t i v e reviews, which s not n l i k e t h e

t a r g e t e d s o l i c i t a t i o n of d i t o r i a l m a t e r i a l engaged i n b y a narrow genre of

p u b l i s h e r s ) ; W quityLLC . X c e n t r i c V e n t u r e s LLC 009WL 2173 N.D.

Tex. a n . 9, 2009) g r a n t i n g s u m mar y judgment o r i p o f f r e p o r t . c o m an d

badbusinessbureau.com f o r claims premised on u s e r reviews, even though s i t e s

r e q u i r e d u s e r s t o s e l e c t category f o r p o s t s , i n c l u d i n g one f o r corrupt companies ) ;

Global o y a l t i e s , L t d . v . Xcent~ic V e n t u r e s , LLC 44 F. Supp. 2d 929 D. r i z .

2008) same f o r r i p o f f r e p o r t . c o m ) ; Whitney nformation Network, n c . , 2008 WL

450095 same).

5 . Inconsistency w i t h CommonLaw efamation.

T he d i s t r i c t c o u r t opined t h a t p e r m i t t i n g defendants o invoke S e c t i o n 230

immunity would allow t t o be used t o s u b v e r t t h e law of efamation which has

e x i s t e d a t common aw f o r c e n t u r i e s , a s well a s t h e laws p r o t e c t i n g t h e r i g h t of

p r i v a c y . . . . 2013WL 068780, t *3. The c o u r t c l e a r l y was n f l u e n c e d b y

common aw p r i n c i p l e s t h a t make t l i b e l o u s t o impute u n c h a s t i t y t o a woman, or

s t a t e t h a t a woman s sexually promiscuous. 840 F. Supp. 2d a t 1011.

But Congress n t e n t i o n a l l y abrogated t h e common aw i n S e c t i o n 230. At

common aw, u b l i s h e r s could be held i a b l e f o r r e p u b l i c a t i o n of defamatory

s t a t e m e n t s , whether or not they knew they were defamatory. Congress recognized

22




t h i s r u l e was unworkable o r t h e v a s t amounts of s e r c o n t e n t on h e I n t e r n e t and

would d e s t r o y t h e r o b u s t flow of nformation and n n o v a t i o n o n l i n e . I t made a

p o l i c y choice to provide immunity o r e n t i t i e s t h a t host h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t , and t

i s not o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , h i s Court, or any t h e r c o u r t t o s u b s t i t u t e a i f f e r e n t

c h o i c e . See Doe . MySpace, n c . , 528 F.3d a t 419; Ca~afano, 3 9 F.3d a t 1 123.

See also supra S e c t i o n IV.A.

6 . I m p l i c i t l y Adopting Thud-Party Content.

F i n a l l y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded h a t d e f e n d a n t s were not n t i t l e d to

Section 230 mmunity bec ause they r a t i f i e d and adopted the c o n t e n t t h e p l a i n t i f f

c h a l l e n g e d . 2013 W 068780, t *4 [T]he a l i e n t p o i n t about i t c h i e ' s t a g l i n e

i s not h a t t was defamatory t s e l f and thus o u t s i d e CDA mmunity, ut a t h e r t h a t

t e f f e c t i v e l y r a t i f i e d and adopted h e t h i r d - p a r t y p o s t . ) ; see a l s o 840 F. Supp. 2d

a t 1012 a s s e r t i n g t h a t a ury could c e r t a i n l y i n t e r p r e t R i t c h i e ' s t a g l i n e , Why r e

a l l high school e a c h e r s f r e a k s i n t h e sack? as adopting the preceding a l l e g e d l y

defamatory comments concerning p l a i n t i f f ' s ] s e x u a l a c t i v i t y ) .

T h e i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o p r e c l u d e S e c t i o n 230 mmunity based on t s

views h a t d e f e n d a n t s i m p l i c i t l y adopted] an f f e n s i v e posting and thereby

e f f e c t i v e l y r a t i f i e d and adopted h e p o s t , 2013 W 068780, t *2 emphasis

added), dangerously e s t r i c t s t h e scope and a v a i l a b i l i t y of e c t i o n 230 immunity

and c r e a t e s an ambiguo us and unworkable t a n d a r d . Any ebsite or n l i n e

23




p l a t f o r m t h a t h o s t s u s e r c o n t e n t r e l a t e d to speech t h a t s omeone might f i n d

o b j e c t i o n a b l e — whether p o l i t i c a l commentary, consumer reviews, e l e b r i t y g o s s i p ,

or c o u n t l e s s o t h e r t o p i c s —would r i s k l i a b i l i t y o n t h e theory t h a t t has

enco uraged unlawful c o n t e n t . See P a r i s i v . S i n c l a i r , 774 F. Supp. 2d 310,316

(D.D.C. 2011) i t would be c o n t r a r y t o t h e purpose o f h e CDA . . to r e q u i r e a

f a c t-based a n a l y s i s o f f and w h e n a defendant ` a d o p t e d ' p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e m e n t s and

revoke immunity o n t h a t b a s i s ) . Websites allowing g i v e -and- t a k e about u s e r -

submitted views and c omments a r e [ t ] h e p r o t o t y p i c a l services] u a l i f y i n g f o r

[Section 230] t a t u t o r y immunity . . . . Accusea~ch, 570 F.3d a t 1195. And, s the

Ninth C i r c u i t held i n Roommates.com, o u r t s should r e j e c t t h e o r i e s o f development

b y i m p l i c a t i o n or . . . i n f e r e n c e , or t h a t a website t a c i t l y a s s e n t e d t o c o n t e n t ,

because otherwise we u t the h e a r t out o f e c t i o n 230. 521 F.3d a t 1174.

E. The i s t r i c t Court's Unprecedented I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Section 23 0

Threatens Speech Across the Internet.

C i r c u i t c o u r t s have c a r e f u l l y d e l i n e a t e d t h e boundaries o f e c t i o n 230

immunity c o n s i s t e n t with Congress's i n t e n t , r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t in l i m i t e d

circumstances, o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s may develop a c t i o n a b l e c o n t e n t i f they

r e q u i r e u s e r s to submit t or r e t a i n t h i r d p a r t i e s t o c r e a t e i t This Court now as the

o p p o r t u n i t y to c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e , and t l i k e w i s e should i n t e r p r e t S e c t i o n 230

c o n s i s t e n t with t s aims and e s t a b l i s h e d case law.

24




I f h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s u n p r e c e d e n t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of e c t i o n 230 s

a c c e p t e d , t h e p r e d i c t a b i l i t y t h a t S e c t i o n 230 now p r o v i d e s w i l l be o s t .

p r o v i d e r w i l l know whether someone might u b j e c t i v e l y d e t e r m i n e i t s s e r v i c e i s

o f f e n s i v e o r i m p l i c i t l y "encourages" f f e n s i v e u s e r c o n t e n t . The e f f e c t s of uch

u n c e r t a i n l y would be a r-r a n g i n g , a s u s e r c o n t e n t i s a e n t r a l f e a t u r e of o u n t l e s s

o n l i n e s e r v i c e s , n c l u d i n g ones o p e r a t e d by Amici. O n l i n e p r o v i d e r s r e l y on h e

p r o t e c t i o n s of e c t i o n 230 o manage h e i r s e r v i c e s and p r o v i d e v i b r a n t forums o r

s p e e c h and commerce. Th e i s k s of h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s a r e p e r h a p s a s

v a r i e d a s t h e b r e a d t h of h i r d c o n t e n t t s e l f but Amici f f e r some examples.

F i r s t , i f o n l i n e p r o v i d e r s a r e s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r "encouraging" o n t e n t b y

e x e r c i s i n g e d i t o r i a l d i s c r e t i o n and d e c i d i n g t o d e l e t e some p o s t s b u t not t h e r s ,

every p r o v i d e r t h a t r e v i e w s and e d i t s u s e r c o n t e n t i s a t r i s k of o s i n g immunity.

B u t e b s i t e s a c r o s s t h e I n t e r n e t do u s t t h a t . For example, h e review w e b s i t e

yelp.com o p e r a t e d by Amicus Yelp I n c . ) has e c e i v e d more h a n 47 i l l i o n

reviews about o c a l b u s i n e s s e s , government e r v i c e s , and o t h e r e s t a b l i s h m e n t s

from t s u s e r s , and u s e s automated o f t w a r e t o d e c i d e which of h e s e reviews o

r ecommend o t h e p u b l i c i n an e f f o r t t o weed o u t r e v i e w s t h a t m a y b e a k e , o v e r l y

o f f e n s i v e , o r o t h e r w i s e u n h e l p f u l . See e v i t t v . Yelp n c . , 2011 W 079526

(N.D. a l . O c t . 26,2011) f i n d i n g Yelp immune o r t h e s e a c t s b e c a u s e e x p o s u r e t o

l i a b i l i t y c o u l d c a u s e i t t o r e s i s t f i l t e r i n g out a l s e/ u n r e l i a b l e r e v i e w s . . . o r t o

25




immediately remove l l n e g a t i v e reviews about which b u s i n e s s e s complained ) .

A m i c u s T r i p A d v i s o r LLC i s p l a y s m i l l i o n s of s e r c o m m e n t s a b o u t h o t e l s a nd

t r a v e l s e r v i c e s , a n d Amicus Am azon.com p r o v i d e s m i l l i o n s of customer reviews

about books an d o t h e r p r o d u c t s . These s i t e s l i k e c o u n t l e s s o t h e r s , r e s e r v e r i g h t s t o

remove, c r e e n , a n d e d i t u s e r- g e n e r a t e d c o n t e n t , a nd t o e x e r c i s e t h e e d i t o r i a l

d i s c r e t i o n t o remove s o m e p o s t s w h i l e a l l o w i n g o t h e r s t o remain p o s t e d . U n d e r

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , such e f f o r t s c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o l i a b i l i t y r a t h e r

t h a n p r o t e c t a g a i n s t t . I f h i s i s t h e r u l e , o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a r e b e t t e r o f f not

r e v i e w i n g , e d i t i n g , o r b l o c k i n g c o n t e n t — a e s u l t t h a t woul d b e e x a c t l y c o n t r a r y t o

S e c t i o n 2 3 0 ' s i n t e n t t o e n c o u r a g e s e l f- p o l i c i n g .

A d di t i o n a l l y , i f w e b s i t e s l o s e S e c t i o n 230 i m m u ni t y b a s e d on a d e c i s i o n t h a t

e i t h e r t h e s i t e o r s o m e of t s c o n t e n t i s o f f e n s i v e , o n l i n e p r o v i d e r s

u n d e r s t a n d a b l y w i l l f e a r even coming c l o s e t o t h i s l i n e . 1 0 For example, A m i c u s

Ga w k er M e d i a LLC p e r a t e s a w e b s i t e c a l l e d Def amer

(www.defame r.gawker.com), which p o s t s c o n t e n t about c e l e b r i t i e s . T h e w e b s i t e

r e d d i t . c o m p r o v i d e s i t e m s p o s t e d b y u s e r s , ranked a c c o r d i n g t o v o t e s b y o t h e r

t os h e Supre m e Court a s r e c o g n i z e d , where p a r t i c u l a r s p e e c h f a l l s c l o s e t o t h e

l i n e s e p a r a t i n g t h e l a w f u l and t h e u n l a w f u l , h e p o s s i b i l i t y of i s t a k e n f a c t f i n d i n g

— i n h e r e n t i n a l l l i t i g a t i o n —will r e a t e t h e danger t h a t t h e l e g i t i m a t e u t t e r a n c e w i l l

b e p e n a l i z e d , f o r [ t ] h e m a n w h o k n o w s h a t he m u s t r i n g f o r t h proof a nd

p e r s u a d e a n o t h e r of h e l a w f u l n e s s of i s conduct e c e s s a r i l y m u s t t e e r f a r wider

of h e u n l a w f u l z o n e . S p e i s e r v . R a n d a l l , 357 U.S. 513,526 1 9 5 8 ) .




u s e r s and o r g a n i z e d by v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s , i n c l u d i n g f o r i t e m s t h a t a r e

c o n t r o v e r s i a l . And a g a i n , many w e b s i t e s d i s p l a y r e v i e w s of u s i n e s s e s o r

p r o f e s s i o n a l s , i n c l u d i n g Amici Amazon.com, r i p A d v i s o r , Awo nd Yelp.

Anytime o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s i n v i t e i n p u t t h a t mayb e o n t r o v e r s i a l o r c r i t i c a l

someone may o n s i d e r something o f f e n s i v e . But r o v i d e r s a r e p r o t e c t e d by

S e c t i o n 230 and h e y s h o u l d b e , b e c a u s e open and r e e speech on h e I n t e r n e t i s

what Congress meant o f o s t e r .

I f w e b s i t e s a r e s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r f a i l i n g t o remove h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t

whenever someone o b j e c t s , t h e y w i l l be s u b j e c t t o t h e h e c k l e r ' s v e t o , g i v i n g

anyone w h o complains u n f e t t e r e d power o c e n s o r s p e e c h . See Reno v . Am. i v i l

L i b e r t i e s Union,521 U.S. 844, 880 1997). For example, Avvo.com h o s t s u s e r

reviews of t t o r n e y s (www.avvo.com) nd would r i s k l i a b i l i t y i f t d i d not remove

c l i e n t comments and reviews whenever a d i s g r u n t l e d a t t o r n e y d i d not i k e them.

T h e same would be r u e f o r Amazon.com i f an a u t h o r o b j e c t e d t o r e v i e w s of e r

work, r TripAdvisor.com i f a o t e l d i s l i k e d r e v i e w s from t s g u e s t s . Under h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , any w e b s i t e t h a t r e c e i v e s a o m p l a i n t about h i r d -

p a r t y c o n t e n t would have i t t l e c h o i c e but o remove t and h e c a n d i d exchange of

i n f o r m a t i o n would s u f f e r a s a e s u l t .

F i n a l l y , i f o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s adopt r r a t i f y u s e r c o n t e n t merely

by e s p o n d i n g t o p o s t s o r adding comments h a t a r e not a c t i o n a b l e , t h a t c o u l d

27




d i s s u a d e w e b s i t e s from i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h u s e r s a l t o g e t h e r . For example, news

w e b s i t e s t h a t s o l i c i t c i t i z e n j o u r n a l i s m about u b l i c e v e n t s , c r i m e t i p s , o r u s e r s '

e x p e r i e n c e s (such a s Amicus CNN's r e p o r t . c o m ) , o f t e n e n c o u r a g e c o n v e r s a t i o n s

between u s e r s and e d i t o r s about e v e l o p i n g news v e n t s . S i m i l a r l y , Amicus

Gawker b e l i e v e s t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n among u b m i t t e r s and e d i t o r s i s i n t e g r a l t o f i n d i n g

and p u b l i s h i n g a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n s o f f e r no l e a r

g u i d a n c e about when an o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' s ow n p u t h a s adopted r

r a t i f i e d a r g u a b l y o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t , n e c e s s a r i l y c a u s i n g them t o be more e t i c e n t

about r o v i d i n g any feedback o r comments, e g a r d l e s s of h e v a l u e of o i n g s o .

I t i s not Amici's p l a c e i n t h i s c a s e t o condone o r condemn d e f e n d a n t s '

w e b s i t e o r c o n d u c t . C e r t a i n l y , an o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r m a y o s e S e c t i o n 230

immunity f t c r e a t e s o r d i r e c t l y p a r t i c i p at e s i n a u t h o r i n g u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t . Bu t

t h e l i n e s s h o u l d be c l e a r , a s o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a c r o s s t h e I n t e r n e t need t o

u n d e r s t a n d and r e l y on h e p r o t e c t i o n s of e c t i o n 230 h a t Congress i n t e n d e d . T h i s

Court should be c a r e f u l not o d e s t r o y t h e l a w ' s broad immunity and d e f e a t t s v e r y

p u r p o s e s b y r e a t i n g t h e o r i e s of i m p l i c i t encouragement r a d o p t i o n , a s t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o u n d .




CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE

This b r i e f complies w i t h t h e type-volu me l i m i t a t i o n o f ed. R. App. P.

29 d) 7) and 3 2 a ) 7 ) B ) i ) because t c o n t a i n s 6,849 words o f e x t a s c a l c u l a t e d b y

t h e w o r d- p r o c e s s i n g program used t o p r e p a r e i t e x c l u d i n g t h e p a r t s o f h e b r i e f

ex emp t ed b y Fed. R. A p p . P. 2 a ) 7 ) B ) i i i ) and i r . R. 2 b ) 1 ) .

This b r i e f complies w i t h t h e t y p e f a c e r e q u i r e m e n t o f ed. R. A p p . P.

3 2 a ) 5 ) and t h e t y p e - s t y l e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f ed. R. A p p . P. 2 a ) 6 ) because t has

b e e n p r e p a r e d i n a p r o p o r t i o n a l l y spaced t y p e f a c e u s i n g M i c r o s o f t W o r d 2011 i n

14- p o i n t T i m e s NewRoman o n t .

s/Jo h n C. Greiner

John C . r e i n e r 0005551)

30


Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com Amicus Brief - by Online Service Providers

Documents

Transcript of Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com Amicus Brief - by Online Service Providers