The Communications Decency Act with Maria Crimi Speth

The Communications Decency Act with Maria Crimi Speth

• 1.
  The Communications Decency Act Presented By: Maria Crimi Speth Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.
• 2.
  THE CDA Provides immunity to ISP’s and Website Operators Who Post Information Authored by Others
• 3.
  IMMUNITY  Doesnot extend to intellectual property claims  47 UCS 230(e)(2)
• 4.
  CDA HAS BEENINVOKED BY  EBAY  AMERICA ONLINE  AMAZON
• 5.
  CDA ALSO PROTECTS  GRIPE SITES  CHAT ROOM HOSTS  NEWS SITES  DATING SITES  ISP’S  ANY WEBSITE THAT POSTS INFORMATION AUTHORED BY OTHERS
• 6.
   “No provideror 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.A. §230
• 7.
   The operationof an Internet website upon which others post statements is an activity which is protected by the Communications Decency Act.  Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.  339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003)
• 8.
  POLICY/BACKGROUND  Caselaw evolved that rewarded website operators for a hands-off policy and punished website operators for policing and editing profanity and obscenity. Congress’ express intention was to supercede that case law and give website operators the comfort of knowing that they will not be held responsible for exercising their editorial functions.
• 9.
  IMMUNITY  Theimmunity extends to protect website operators from claims based on the operator’s failure to investigate postings or failing to edit or remove inaccurate postings, and claims based on the website operator making editorial decisions on what to post or not post. Batzel v. Smith, 2003 WL 21453358 (9th Cir. 2003)
• 10.
   “Congress haschosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory speech, providers or users of interactive computer services when the defamatory material is provided by someone else.” – Batzel v. Smith, 2003 WL 21453358 (9th Cir. 2003)
• 11.
   One ofthese policy reasons is to – “Prevent lawsuits from shutting down websites and other services on the Internet.” – Batzel v. Smith, 2003 WL 21453358 (9th Cir. 2003)
• 12.
  CDA  TheCommunications Decency Act applies even where the website operator had notice and refused to remove the offending material. – Doe v. America Online 783 So.2d 1010 (Fl. 2001), cert. denied
• 13.
   The CommunicationsDecency Act also prohibits injunctive relief against website operators – Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 983-984 (10th Cir. 2000); Kathleen R. et al v. City of Livermore, 87 Cal App.4th 684, 697- 98, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 772, 780-81 (2001) Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. E.D. V.A. 2003, 261 F.Supp.2d 532
• 14.
  OTHER CASES INTERPRETING THE CDA  Zeran v. American Online, Inc. 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct.2341, 524 U.S. 937 (1997)  Schneider v. Amazon.com, Inc., 31 P.3d 37 (Wash.App 2001)  Gentry v. Ebay, 99 Cal. App.4th 816, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 703 (2002)  Doe v. GTE Corp., 1347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003)  PatentWizard, Inc. v. Kinkos, Inc., 63 F. Supp.2d 1069 (D.S.D. 2001)  Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998)
• 15.
  The Communications Decency Act Presented By: Maria Crimi Speth Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.