Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How the Supreme Court Saved the Internet from Itself: 'Gonzalez v. Google' and 'Twitter v. Taamneh'
The United States Supreme Court did not destroy the Internet on May 18, 2023. That day, the Court released its opinions in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 143 S. Ct. 1191 (2023) (per curiam), and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 143 S. Ct. 1206 (2023). In these companion cases from the Ninth Circuit, family members of ISIS victims sued large tech companies under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) for allegedly aiding and abetting foreign terrorists by providing them with platforms "for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds, and attracting new recruits." Complaint ¶ 12, Taamneh v. Twitter, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-4107 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017). Defendants in both cases asserted defenses under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (Section 230). Section 230, generally speaking, shields online platforms from liability for otherwise actionable content users post on their sites. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases on Oct. 3, 2022, worry quickly spread that the Court "could break the Internet" by weakening this liability shield. Isaac Chotiner, "Two Supreme Court Cases that Could Break the Internet," New Yorker (Jan. 25, 2023). The Internet is still standing, but the Supreme Court's reasoning in the 583-word Gonzalez opinion remains perplexing. Gonzalez and Taamneh are a story about how the Supreme Court "saved" the Internet from itself, and the Court needed both cases to do so.
Section 230
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states in relevant part that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1). This language draws from the common law distinction between content "publishers" and "distributors." Newsstands, magazine racks, and mail carriers all distribute content, but they are not "publishers." They are likely to at some point inadvertently disseminate libelous materials, but "the imposition of liability without adequate proof of fault would unquestionably chill the exercise of distributors' First Amendment rights." Lerman v. Flynt Distrib. Co. 745 F.2d 123, 139 (2d Cir. 1984). To avoid such a chilling effect, "courts have long held that vendors and distributors of defamatory publications are not liable if they neither know nor have reason to know of the defamation." Lerman v. Chuckleberry Publ'g, Inc., 521 F. Supp. 228, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.