The moderator’s dilemma is the “grim choice” that ICSs faced absent Section 230’s protections: engage in content moderation and consequently adopt a 4 duty to prevent the dissemination of any harmful user-generated content on the platform, or to forego content moderation altogether to escape liability. [...] The combination of the outcomes in CompuServe and Prodigy created the moderator’s dilemma: ICSs’ only reasonable options to avoid massive tort liability would be to either forego moderating content altogether or to err on the side of over- moderating users’ communications, stunting the flow of speech. [...] This led the court to treat the online provider as a publisher, not simply a distributor, and to therefore hold the provider responsible for defamatory statements made by others on the system. [...] 3 The Court referred to this as the “principal or perhaps only purpose” due to the House Committee Report that referred to overturning Prodigy as “[o]ne of the principal purposes” of Section 230 without providing any other purposes. [...] Despite the fact that the plaintiff alleged Yahoo was liable for failing to engage in certain publishing activities and that user-generated content was a but-for cause of the illegality, this Court found that the breach of contract claim was not barred because it did not force Yahoo into the moderator’s dilemma.
Authors
- Pages
- 28
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- No. 24-475 1
- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1
- FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 1
- BRIEF OF THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION 1
- CENTER AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF- 1
- APPELLANT AND REVERSAL 1
- CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 2
- TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
- ................................................................................... 23 3
- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 4
- Cases 4
- ................................................... 14 15 18 4
- ......................................................... 7 9 4
- ................ 20 4
- ....................................................... 5 14 18 4
- .................................................. 4 5 13 18 4
- .................................................................................. 17 4
- ............................................................. 19 4
- .................................................. 5 14 18 19 4
- .......................................................... 18 19 4
- ................... 17 4
- .. 7 8 9 10 4
- .................................................................................. 17 4
- ........................................................................ 20 5
- .......................................................................... 19 5
- Statutes 5
- Other Authorities 5
- INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE 6
- SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 7
- ARGUMENT 9
- SECTION 230 ONLY PREVENTS CLAIMS THAT WOULD FORCE INTERNET COMPANIES INTO THE MODERATORS DILEMMA. 9
- A PROPERLY LIMITED SECTION 230 WILL NOT DESTROY THE INTERNET. 20
- CONCLUSION 26
- Date 26
- CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 27
- This brief contains 3943 words 27
- Signature Date 27
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 28
- Date 28
