{"id":1743343,"date":"2022-11-18T07:17:30","date_gmt":"2022-11-18T12:17:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1743343"},"modified":"2022-11-18T07:17:36","modified_gmt":"2022-11-18T12:17:36","slug":"federal-court-determines-section-230-is-not-license-to-do-whatever-one-wants-online","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/federal-court-determines-section-230-is-not-license-to-do-whatever-one-wants-online\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Court Determines Section 230 \u2018Is Not License To Do Whatever One Wants Online\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">28<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Ffederal-court-determines-section-230-is-not-license-to-do-whatever-one-wants-online%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1743343&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>On Nov. 3, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ca4.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/211678.P.pdf\">Henderson v. Private Data<\/a> <\/em>that could revolutionize the internet, concluding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not immunize \u201call\u201d online publication decisions. The Fourth Circuit Court just determined Section 230(c)(1) no longer protects a service provider when it acts upon third-party content (i.e<em>.<\/em>, as a secondary publisher or content provider), especially if those substantive contributions are unlawful.<\/p>\n<p>Simply put, we have been right all along, and we now have the conflicting circuit court precedent to prove it. The Supreme Court needs to consider the Fourth Circuit\u2019s arguments and address this split between circuits.<\/p>\n<p>As I\u2019ve also discussed in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.humanevents.com\/2022\/10\/12\/jason-fyk-publisher-vs-platform-section-230s-as-applied-problem\">Human Events<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thegatewaypundit.com\/2022\/09\/private-state-action-section-230s-achilles-heel\/\">The Gateway Pundit<\/a>, Section 230 has two distinct problems. Section 230(c)(1) is untenable \u201cas applied\u201d and it is unconstitutional \u201con its face.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the Fourth Circuit Court\u2019s <em>Henderson<\/em> decision, most courts, relying on longstanding precedent like <em><a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/district-courts\/FSupp\/958\/1124\/1881560\/\">Zeran v. AOL inc<\/a>.<\/em>, wrongly <a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/issues\/cda230\/cases\/barnes-v-yahoo\">believed<\/a> Section (c)(1), not 230(c)(2), \u201cshields from liability all publication decisions, whether to edit, to remove, or to post, with respect to content generated entirely by third parties.\u201d This statement, taken out of context, is wrong.<\/p>\n<p>Courts have <a href=\"https:\/\/archiveia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/IA_Review-Of-Section-230.pdf\">consistently misapplied<\/a> 230(c)(1)\u2019s protection to content moderation decisions more fitting the 230(c)(2) paradigm<em>. <\/em>Section 230(c)(1) was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.humanevents.com\/2022\/10\/12\/jason-fyk-publisher-vs-platform-section-230s-as-applied-problem\">read and applied so broadly<\/a> that 230(c)(1) became absolute sovereignty and 230(c)(2) became redundant protection.<\/p>\n<p>Under such reasoning, the California courts came to the arbitrary conclusion that I was treating Facebook as \u201ca publisher\u201d of my own content, and that their \u201ccontent development\u201d actions (i.e., substantive contributions) did not rise to the arbitrary level of an \u201cinformation content provider.\u201d They dismissed my case without truly considering my argument.<\/p>\n<p> The CDA Can\u2019t Protect \u2018All Publication Decisions\u2019  <\/p>\n<p>Over the past 51 months, my attorneys, Jeff Greyber and Constance Yu, and I have been arguing that 230(c)(1) cannot logically immunize \u201call publication decisions.\u201d In fact, we argued Section 230(c)(1) cannot logically apply to any active content moderation decisions<em>. <\/em>However, we have not had much success convincing the courts that their longstanding precedent is fatally flawed.<\/p>\n<p>Mere days before we petitioned the Supreme Court, things took a strange turn. Another Ninth Circuit case, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/20pdf\/19-1284_869d.pdf\"><em>Enigma vs. Malwarebytes<\/em><\/a>, concluded the \u201cGood Samaritan\u201d general provision of the CDA located in Section 230(c), does <em>not<\/em> immunize anticompetitive content blocking. Anticompetitive blocking was the <em>exact <\/em>cause of action I had advanced in the California courts. My result, however, was different than <em>Enigma<\/em>\u2019s.<\/p>\n<p>We hit a unique crossroads. Do we go back to the Northern District of California (NDCA) to argue the <em>Enigma<\/em> panel conflict and forgo our eminent Supreme Court filing, or do we press ahead, include <em>Enigma<\/em> in our Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and argue it in the Supreme Court? Since our petition was essentially ready to file, it made far more sense to go forward rather than backward.<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to take up our case, likely because the conflicting decisions were within the same circuit court. It seems we<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just fixed 230(c)(1), creating a conflict with the Ninth Circuit Court. Will the Supreme Court finally address the breadth of Big Tech immunity?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1552,"featured_media":1743346,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1743343","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1743343","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1552"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1743343"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1743343\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1743346"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1743343"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1743343"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1743343"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}