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,

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 .

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

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 .

TABLEOFCONTENTS

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

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

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

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

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

Other Authorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ) .

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

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 . ) .

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

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.

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

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

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 ) ) .

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 . )

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

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 )

(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

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.

sarah jones v. thedirty.com amicus brief - by online service providers

Documents

wchevesi amicus

sarah jones v. thedirty.com - appellants' reply brief

amicus overview - d2r72yk5wmppdj.cloudfront.net · amicus...

bio amicus

amicus curiae

sarah jones v. thedirty.com - bill of costs

amicus fija

adl amicus

dirty amicus

amicus point of sale and business management system amicus...

amicus point of sale and business management system amicus...

gessler amicus

foursquare amicus

patterson amicus

amicus mobile guide - amicus attorney

economists amicus

amicus brief

respro amicus

install guide for amicus premium 2013 sp1 - amicus attorney

wellsvjordan amicus