David S. Ardia has written an excellent and comprehensive law review article about the all-important Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  The article is entitled “Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.”  It is a must read for all lawyers who deal with this statute.  Here’s the abstract:

In the thirteen years since its enactment, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has become one of the most important statutes impacting online speech, as well as one of the most intensely criticized. In deceptively simple language, its provisions sweep away the common law’s distinction between publisher and distributor liability, granting operators of Web sites and other interactive computer services broad protection from claims based on the speech of third parties. Section 230 is of critical importance because virtually all speech that occurs on the Internet is facilitated by private intermediaries that have a fragile commitment to the speech they facilitate.

This Article presents the first empirical study of the section 230 case law. It begins by providing a doctrinal overview of common law liability for intermediaries, both online and offline, and describes how section 230 modifies these doctrinal approaches. It then systematically analyzes the 184 decisions courts have issued since the statute’s enactment. The Article also examines how courts have applied section 230, finding that judges have been haphazard in their approach to its application.

The Article closes by discussing the study’s findings and by offering some insights into how plaintiffs and defendants have fared under section 230. While section 230 has largely protected intermediaries from liability for third-party speech, it has not been the free pass many of its proponents claim and its critics lament. More than a third of the claims at issue in the cases survived a section 230 defense. Even in cases where the court dismissed the claims, intermediaries bore liability in the form of litigation costs, and it took courts, on average, nearly a year to issue decisions addressing an intermediary’s defense under section 230.

Related posts:

  1. 4th Circuit Reaffirms Its Position that the Communications Decency Act Provides Immunity from the Burden of Defending a Lawsuit
  2. Yahoo Not Liable for Improper Use of Woman’s Name
  3. Online Publisher Not Subject to Injunction Against Original Author of Defamatory Posts
  4. Judge Tosses Sheriff’s Suit Against Craigslist Over Prostitution Ads
  5. Federal Court Upholds Attorney-Client Privilege for Employee’s Private Communications to which Employer Had Access
  6. Blogger Beware: Postings can Lead to Lawsuits
  7. Meet John Doe: Internet Defamation Plaintiffs are Itching for the Chance
  8. May Employers Monitor Personal E-mail? Cases Turn on Disclosure
  9. May a Court Enter an Injunction Requiring an ISP to Take Down an Allegedly Defamatory Third Party Post?
  10. District Court Ruling Clarifies Extent to which a Website Can Permit Publication of Illegal Content but Retain Communications Decency Act Immunity