Communication Decency Act Section 230 Immunity: Defining an Internet Service Provider as a Publisher or Speaker

June 9th, 2009

People often refer to the Communication Decency Act’s (CDA) ability to provide immunity to internet service providers who publish third party material.  Interestingly enough, the statute itself does not use the word immunity but rather provides an exclusion from liability.  That exclusion considers whether the internet service provider is publisher or a speaker.  In fact, courts are beginning to adhere to the publisher or speaker definition in assessing the applicability of the exception.

Simply put, courts must ask whether the duty that the plaintiff alleges the defendant violated derives from the defendant’s status or conduct as a publisher or speaker.  If it does, the first exclusion to section 230 precludes liability.  Courts have defined the publisher to mean someone who reviews material submitted for publication, even edits it to a certain extent, and then decides whether to publish it.   And a speaker actually submits the material that will be published.   Either way, the action requires the court to treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of content provided by another, unity under section 230 likely applies.

Determining whether the website operator is a publisher or speaker will likely determine the outcome of a case.  Since the Communication Decency Act often is implicated in cases dealing with defamation, fraud, obscenity, assault, harassment, and other related torts, understanding whether the website operator merely provided a forum for user-generated content to  be published or somehow encouraged or participated in illegal behavior as a speaker should help determine the outcome.  While it will likely still be referred to as CDA immunity, the analysis the courts are performing, and one that attorneys should be aware of, tends to focus on the publisher or speaker determination.

Please contact an internet lawyer today to discuss.

One Response to “Communication Decency Act Section 230 Immunity: Defining an Internet Service Provider as a Publisher or Speaker”

  1. Late last year, we had the opportunity to carefully review all of the civil cases interpreting the limitations of Section 230 immunity. The simple rule emerging from those cases is clear: If the “essential published content” is willingly provided by a third-party, the interactive computer service provider publishing that content enjoys the full immunity afforded by Section 230. (See http://tinyurl.com/CDA230 & http://tinyurl.com/CraigslistAG)

Comments

© 2011 Traverse Legal, PLC. All Rights Reserved.
Traverse Legal on LinkedInTraverse Legal on FacebookTraverse Legal on Twitter
Events & Conferences:
  • International Trademark Association 2011, San Francisco, California
  • Cyber Law Summit 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Game Developers Conference 2011, San Francisco, California
  • DOMAINfest 2011, Santa Monica, California
Recent Attorney Speaking Engagements:
  • South By Southwest 2010 SXSW Interactive Conference, Austin, Texas
  • West LegalEdcenter Midwestern Law Firm Management, Chicago, Illinois
  • Internet Advertising under Part 255, Altitude Design Summit, Salt Lake City, Utah
  • Online Defamation and Reputation Management, News Talk 650 AM, The Cory Kolt Show, Canada Public Radio Saskatewan Canada
  • Alternative Fee Structures, Center for Competitive Management, Jersey City, New Jersey
  • FTC Part 255 Advertising Requirements, Mom 2.0 Conference, Houston, Texas
  • Webmaster Radio, Cybersquatting & Domain Monetization, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Notable Complex Litigation Cases Handled By Our Lawyers:
  • Trademark Infringement, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • Cybersquatting Law, Trademark Law and Dilution Detroit, Michigan
  • Internet Defamation & Online Libel Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Trade Secret Theft, Chicago, Illinois
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Miami, Florida
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Eastern Dist. of Virginia, Alexandria
  • Stolen Domain Name, Orlando, Florida
  • Commercial Litigation, Tampa, Florida
  • Copyright Infringement and Cybersquatting Law, Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Mass Tort Litigation, Los Angeles, California
  • Stolen Domain Name, Detroit, Michigan
  • Adwords Keyword Trademark Infringement, Los Angeles, California
  • Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Non-Compete Agreement and Trade Secret Theft, Detroit, Michigan
  • Mass Tort, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Mass Tort, Tyler, Texas
  • Insurance Indemnity, New York
  • Copyright Infringement, Detroit, Michigan