Third Circuit: Section 230 Does Not Bar Pennsylvania Statutory Right of Publicity Claim Against FacebookDori Hanswirth, Michael E. Kientzle, and Rachel Carpman
The Third Circuit split with a leading Ninth Circuit opinion holding that internet service providers are immune from all state intellectual property law claims.
As the panel wrote, the defendants are not trying to hold Snap liable as a publisher under Section 230. Rather, Snap is liable for a negligently designed product as a manufacturer — a completely different role.
This article reviews the background and evolution of Section 230, explains proposals to reform or eliminate it, and evaluates some First Amendment implications of those proposals.
The decision, which involves the question of whether peer-to-peer vehicle marketplace Turo is immunized by § 230 from liability for users’ unauthorized activity at Boston’s Logan Airport, is the first significant ruling from Massachusetts’ high court on the scope of § 230’s protection.
Is Compelling Social Media to Moderate According to First Amendment Standards Consistent with First Amendment Principles?Jeff Hermes
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a separate concurring opinion questioning whether public officials could be held to First Amendment standards with respect to conduct on social media sites owned and operated by private parties who are not themselves subject to the First Amendment.
A Delaware court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former Trump 2016 campaign adviser Carter Page against Yahoo News and HuffPost concerning articles about the U.S. intelligence investigation into Page’s contacts with Russia.
If passed, the Act would dramatically change the landscape of online liability.
Conditioning 230 immunity on opening yourself up to legal liability under consumer protection law is a Rube-Goldberg-esque legal contraption intended to do what the First Amendment clearly forbids: forcing websites to host user-generated content they find objectionable.