The server test has been the law in the Ninth Circuit since 2007, but in recent years it has come under attack in lower courts in other jurisdictions.
In filing a complaint many have dubbed “the first of its kind,” a radio host in Georgia recently sued for defamation the company behind the much-buzzed-about artificial intelligence chat platform ChatGPT. And while the concept of suing an AI developer for an intent-based tort may be quite novel, the facts at issue highlight some familiar…
An attorney’s recent debacle with AI was based on a basic and very common misunderstanding of what a tool like ChatGPT, powered by a large language model, is and does. This article attempts to clear things up.
In late April, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases affecting citizens’ ability to sue government officials who block them on social media. When the court tackles O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed (likely this fall), it should embrace a rule that enhances, not constrains, the First Amendment right to engage with…
The two laws have drawn national attention in part because of the increasing focus on supposed harms social media platforms are causing minors, but also because they test, if not far exceed, the outer constitutional limits of regulating private speech.
Section 230 Under Fire: The Supreme Court and Congress Weigh Narrowing Internet Service Providers’ Immunity for Content Posted by OthersJim Rosenfeld, Adam Sieff, and Shontee Pant
This article reviews how Gonzalez came before the Court, discusses the principal arguments that the parties and amici have raised, and previews proposed Congressional actions.
Tulane Law professor, former journalist and privacy expert on the skirmishes between the press, the public, and the powerful, and the evolving boundaries of the law.
Santa Clara University School of Law professor on the First Amendment implications of efforts to compel internet services to disclose various aspects of their decision-making processes and criteria with respect to user-generated speech.
The opinion reaches a result that many might consider unremarkable. However, it turns on reading new limitations into the scope of Section 230’s protection that are deeply concerning.