Upload
david-s-gingras
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 1/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 2/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 3/139
ii
subsidiary or affiliate of any publicly held corporation, and no other publicly held
corporation has a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation by virtue of its
participation.
LinkedIn Corp. states that it does not have a parent corporation and that no
publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of LinkedIn stock. LinkedIn Corp. is
not a subsidiary or affiliate of any publicly held corporation, and no other publicly
held corporation has a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation by virtue of
its participation.
Microsoft Corp. states that it does not have a parent corporation and that no
publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Microsoft stock. Microsoft Corp.
is not a subsidiary or affiliate of any publicly held corporation, and no other
publicly held corporation has a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation by
virtue of its participation.
Tumblr, Inc. states that its parent corporation is Yahoo! Inc., which does not
have a parent corporation, and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more
of Yahoo! Inc.’s stock. Tumblr is not a subsidiary or affiliate of any other publicly
held corporation, and no other publicly held corporation has a financial interest in
the outcome of the litigation by virtue of its participation.
Twitter, Inc. states that it does not have a parent corporation and that no
publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Twitter stock. Twitter, Inc. is not a
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 3 (8 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 4/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 5/139
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................................................................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 4
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 7
I. SECTION 230 BROADLY IMMUNIZES O NLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS
FROM LIABILITY FOR CONTENT PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES ......................... 7
II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S NARROW CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION
230 IS ERRONEOUS ......................................................................................... 11
A. The District Court Applied the Wrong Standard ................................ 12
B. The Factors on Which the District Court Relied Do NotEstablish a Basis for Losing Section 230 Immunity ........................... 17
III. THE PREVAILING I NTERPRETATION OF SECTION 230 PROMOTES
ITS PURPOSES AND HAS BEEN CRITICAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT
AND GROWTH OF THE I NTERNET ..................................................................... 20
A. Section 230 Promotes Free Speech and OnlineCommerce ........................................................................................... 20
B. Section 230 Immunity Gives Service Providers Room ToSelf-Regulate ....................................................................................... 24
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 29
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 5 (10 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 6/139
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page(s)
Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Project Playlist, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 2d 690(S.D.N.Y. 2009) ............................................................................................. 15
Backpage.com, LLC v. Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d 805 (M.D. Tenn.2013) .............................................................................................................. 10
Barrett v. Rosenthal , 146 P.3d 510 (Cal. 2006) ....................................................... 11
Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................... 8, 20, 21, 22
Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980
(10th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................... 9
Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998) .............................. 10, 15, 16
Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) ........... 18, 20, 25
Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v.
craigslist, Inc., 519 F. 3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) ........................................... 9, 16
Courtney v. Vereb & Angie’s List, Inc., 2012 WL 2405313 (E.D. La.
June 25, 2012) .................................................................................................. 9 Dimeo v. Max, 433 F. Supp. 2d 523 (E.D. Pa.), aff’d , 2007 WL
217865 (3d Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................... 9
Doe v. America Online, 783 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2001) ............................................. 11
Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 843 (W.D. Tex. 2007) ................................. 9
Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) ................................................. 8
Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 663 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ................................ 15
Eckert v. Microsoft Corp., 2007 WL 496692 (E.D. Mich. 2007) ............................ 10
Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, LLC , 521 F.3d 1157(9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................5, 12, 13, 14, 19, 28
FTC v. Accusearch Inc., 570 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2009) ....................................... 16
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 6 (11 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 7/139
vi
Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703 ............................................................. 18
Goddard v. Google, Inc., 2008 WL 5245490 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17,2008) .............................................................................................................. 28
Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ...................... 9, 15
Green v. America Online, Inc., 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) .............................. 9, 28
Hill v. StubHub, 727 S.E.2d 550 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) ........................................... 10
Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010) ........................................... 8, 16, 28
Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC
2013 WL 4068780 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 12, 2013) ................ 11, 12, 17, 18, 24, 27
Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC840 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (E.D. Ky. 2012) ..................................11, 12, 17, 18, 19
Jurin v. Google Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ................................. 15
Klayman v. Zuckerberg , 910 F.Supp.2d 314 (D.D.C. 2012) ..................................... 9
Murawski v. Pataki, 2007 WL 2781054 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ........................................ 9
Nemet Chevrolet Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250
(4th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 8, 15, 17, 18
Noah v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va. 2003),aff’d , 2004 WL 602711 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2004) ............................................ 9
Parisi v. Sinclair , 774 F.Supp.2d 310 (D.D.C. 2011) .............................................. 17
Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2006) ................................... 9
Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC , 728 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2013) ...................................... 10
Shiamili v. The Real Estate Group of New York , 952 N.E.2d 1011(N.Y. 2011) .................................................................................................... 10
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710(N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995) ....................................................................... 24
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 7 (12 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 8/139
vii
Universal Communications Systems, Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413(1st Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 9
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) .......................... passim
STATUTES
28 U.S.C. § 4102(c)(1) ............................................................................................. 11
47 U.S.C.§ 230(a)(3) ..................................................................................................... 21§ 230(a)(4) ..................................................................................................... 21§ 230(b)(2) ..................................................................................................... 21§ 230(b)(2) ..................................................................................................... 17§ 230(c)(1) .............................................................................................. passim
§ 230(c)(2) ..................................................................................................... 27§ 230(e) ............................................................................................................ 6§ 230(e)(3) ....................................................................................................... 8§ 230(f)(3) .............................................................................................. 5, 7, 12§ 941 .............................................................................................................. 11
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
H.R. Rep. No. 107-449 (2002) ................................................................................. 11
S. Rep. No. 104-230 (1996) ..................................................................................... 24
141 Cong. Rec. 22,046 ............................................................................................. 25
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Booz & Co., The Impact of U.S. Internet Copyright Regulations on
Early-Stage Investment (2012), available at http://www.booz.com/global/home/what-we-think/reports-white-papers/article-display/impact-internet-copyright-regulations-early-2 ................................. 23
eBay, How to Report inappropriate buying and selling , available at http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/ report-trading.html#wont .......................... 27
eBay, When eBay may remove or adjust Feedback , available at http:// pages.ebay.com/help/policies/feedback-removal.html .................................. 27
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 8 (13 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 9/139
viii
Facebook Community Standards, available at https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards .............................................................................. 26
Facebook, Report a Violation, available at https://www.facebook.com/help/263149623790594/ ........................................................................ 26
Google Terms of Service, available at https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ ........................................................................................... 26
LinkedIn Professional Community Guidelines, available at http://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/34593 ........................................ 27
LinkedIn User Agreement, available at http://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement ...................................................................................... 26
LinkedIn, Complaints Regarding Content Posted on the LinkedInWebsite, available at http://www.linkedin.com/legal/copyright-
policy#pri-2 .................................................................................................... 26
Microsoft Code of Conduct, available at http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-live/code-of-conduct .................................................... 26
The Twitter Rules, available at http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules# ................................................................................ 26
Tumblr Community Guidelines, available at http://www.tumblr.com/ policy/en/community ..................................................................................... 26
Twitter, I’m reporting an abusive user , available at https://support.twitter.com/forms/abusiveuser ...................................................................... 26
YouTube Reporting and Enforcement Center, available at http://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/ reporting.html ................................. 26
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 9 (14 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 10/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 11/139
2
platforms had more than 110 million active users, and its payments platforms had
more than 120 million active registered accounts. Collectively, in 2012, eBay
enabled $175 billion of global commerce.
Facebook, Inc. provides a free Internet-based social media service that
enables its more than one billion users to connect with their friends and family, to
discover what is going on in the world around them, and to share what matters to
them and to the people they care about.
Google Inc. offers a suite of web-based products and services to billions of
people worldwide—most notably, its eponymous search engine, as well as other
products such as its video-sharing service, YouTube, the Google Play store,
Google Maps, Blogger, and its social networking product, Google+.
LinkedIn Corp. is the world’s largest professional network on the Internet
with more than 259 million members.
Microsoft Corp. is a worldwide leader in software, services, and solutions
that help people and businesses realize their full potential. These include the Bing
search engine and the Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 app stores.
Tumblr, Inc. was founded in 2007 by its CEO David Karp in New York
City, and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Yahoo! Inc. Tumblr’s mission is to
serve creators by providing the best products and services, on all platforms, to
enable them to create and distribute their work online to the audience that they
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 11 (16 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 12/139
3
deserve. Tumblr is home to nearly 150 million blogs and over 65 billion posts,
which reach an audience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide each month.
Twitter, Inc. is a global platform for public self-expression and conversation
in real time. Twitter has more than 230 million monthly active users creating
approximately 500 million Tweets every day.
Zynga Inc. develops, markets, and operates online social games as live
services played over the Internet and on social networking sites and mobile
platforms. Zynga is a leading online social game developer with approximately
133 million average monthly active users for the three months ending September
30, 2013.
Each of the Amici has a substantial interest in the rules governing whether
providers of interactive computer services may be liable for unlawful online
content generated by third parties. Because they serve as platforms for the online
communications and transactions of hundreds of millions of users, Amici have
been and/or inevitably will be parties to controversies in which they must raise
Section 230 immunity. The vitality of online discourse and commerce made
possible by these companies’ interactive services depends in part on their ability to
avoid the burdens of litigation and potential liability in cases in which it is alleged
that one or more of their users has misused their services to create and disseminate
tortious or otherwise unlawful content. As discussed herein, aspects of the district
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 12 (17 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 13/139
4
court decision in this case significantly depart from the settled interpretation of
Section 230 and, if adopted by this Court, would not only contravene Congress’s
policies as declared in the statute, but also introduce substantial uncertainty
regarding a law that has been a pillar for the growth and success of America’s
Internet industry.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Amici urge this Court to join the overwhelming consensus of other courts
that have interpreted Section 230 as providing interactive computer services with
broad immunity against liability for content provided by third parties. The
protection afforded by Section 230 has been and remains critical to the
development and robustness of the Internet and interactive services such as those
provided by Amici. The district court, perhaps in reaction to the particular facts of
this case, interpreted Section 230 narrowly and in a manner contrary to the
established case law. If upheld, that interpretation would significantly undermine
the immunity afforded by Section 230 and undercut Congress’s express intentions
when passing the statute.
Since Section 230’s enactment in 1996, courts throughout the nation have
consistently held that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) provides interactive computer service
providers with broad protection from liability for unlawful content created or
developed by their users or other third parties. In particular, as these courts have
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 13 (18 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 14/139
5
recognized, Section 230 bars a claim whenever (i) the defendant asserting
immunity is an interactive computer service provider, (ii) the particular
information at issue was provided by “another information content provider,” and
(iii) the claim seeks to “treat” the defendant as a “publisher or speaker” of that
information.
The district court’s decision focused on the second element of Section 230
immunity. Specifically, it addressed the question of what activity by a service
provider is sufficient to make it also an “information content provider” of content
originating from a third-party user, thereby forfeiting its statutory protection from
liability. Under the express terms of the statute, the answer to this question turns
on whether the service provider was “responsible, in whole or in part, for the
creation or development” of the content at issue. 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3). Clearly,
Section 230 provides no protection for content a service provider itself authors.
Thus, in this case, Section 230 would not apply to claims that the “taglines”
created by the defendants were themselves tortious.
But the district court went much farther. It held that a service provider is an
“information content provider” merely if it “encourages” the submission of a
particular type of content. That conclusion is contrary to the case law, including
what the district court itself characterized as the principal authority on which it
relied, the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Fair Housing Council v.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 14 (19 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 15/139
6
Roommates.com, LLC , 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008). As that court recognized,
such an interpretation would undermine the immunity afforded by Section 230. So
long as the service provider does not itself participate in creating or developing the
particular content alleged to be unlawful—which did not occur here with respect to
the allegedly tortious material submitted by users of appellants’ website—and does
not otherwise require or force users to submit unlawful content (as happened in
Roommates but not here), the language of Section 230 and case law establish that
the service provider is immune from claims arising from content provided by a
third party.2
As Congress intended, and as Amici can attest from experience, the broad
protection provided by Section 230(c)(1) has served as a foundational underpinning
for the development and growth of the Internet as a medium for free expression and
commerce. It has enabled innumerable online platforms and services through which
users can engage in vibrant online speech and interactions. If Section 230’s
protection were narrowed, many service providers likely would have to curb such
services (e.g., by offering only moderated services) and often would have little
choice but to yield to a “heckler’s veto” whenever someone complains that
particular content is tortious or unlawful in order to avoid the risk of liability.
2 Section 230 provides several express exceptions to this immunity, such as
for claims under intellectual property laws, but none of those is applicable here.See 47 U.S.C. § 230(e).
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 15 (20 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 16/139
7
The Internet also has enabled new and innovative forms of commerce,
including online marketplaces. Again, consistent with Congress’s declared
policies, the prevailing interpretation of Section 230(c)(1) allows myriad service
providers, ranging from start-ups to established companies with household names,
to operate services that support these virtual marketplaces. Such services likely
would exist only in much more limited forms if they were faced with a constant
threat of litigation and liability for every fraudulent, misleading, or otherwise
unlawful listing that any one of their millions of users might post.
Amici cannot emphasize enough the degree to which the protection afforded
by Section 230(c)(1), as consistently interpreted by courts, has played a critical
role in fostering the development and growth of interactive services that both
empower users and encourage innovation and self-regulation. Amici therefore
respectfully urge this Court to embrace the settled interpretation of Section 230 and
to reject the undue limits that the district court decision would place upon it.
ARGUMENT
I. SECTION 230 BROADLY IMMUNIZES ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS FROM
LIABILITY FOR CONTENT PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES
The plain language of Section 230 bars suits against web sites and other
interactive service providers predicated on content that was “creat[ed] or
develop[ed]” by third parties and not by the provider. 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3). The
key provision of Section 230 states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 16 (21 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 17/139
8
computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider.” Id. § 230(c)(1). Section
230(e)(3) further provides that “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no
liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this
section.” Under Section 230, “[s]tate-law plaintiffs may hold liable the person
who creates or develops unlawful content, but not the interactive computer service
provider who merely enables that content to be posted online.” Nemet Chevrolet
Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2009).
Even as long as decade ago, the Ninth Circuit noted a “consensus developing
across other courts of appeal that § 230(c) provides broad immunity for publishing
content provided primarily by third parties.” Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003). That consensus has since hardened, with each of the eight United
States Courts of Appeal that has considered the question interpreting Section 230
as broadly insulating interactive service providers from liability for third-party
content. See Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 791 (8th Cir. 2010) (“The majority
of federal circuits have interpreted the CDA to establish broad federal immunity to
any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information
originating with a third-party user of the service.”); Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d
413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Courts have construed the immunity provisions in § 230
broadly in all cases arising from the publication of user-generated content”); Zeran
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 17 (22 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 18/139
9
v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 328 (4th Cir. 1997) (“Section 230 … plainly
immunizes computer service providers like AOL from liability for information that
originates with third parties”); Green v. America Online, Inc., 318 F.3d 465, 471
(3d Cir. 2003) (“By its terms, § 230 provides immunity to AOL as a publisher or
speaker of information originating from another information content provider”);
Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 984-985 (10th
Cir. 2000) (§ 230 “creates a federal immunity to any state law cause of action that
would hold computer service providers liable for information originating with a
third-party”); Universal Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413, 419 (1st
Cir. 2007) (“[W]e too find that Section 230 immunity should be broadly
construed”); Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v.
craigslist, Inc., 519 F. 3d 666, 671 (7th Cir. 2008) (finding that “[a]n interactive
computer service ‘causes’ postings only in the sense of providing a place where
people can post” and such a role cannot give rise to liability given Section 230).3
3 Numerous district courts have likewise held that Section 230 broadly
immunizes interactive services from liability for third-party content. See, e.g., Klayman v. Zuckerberg , 910 F.Supp.2d 314, 318 (D.D.C. 2012) (“By its plainterms, then, the CDA immunizes internet computer service providers from liability
for the publication of information or speech originating from third parties.”);Courtney v. Vereb & Angie’s List, Inc., 2012 WL 2405313, at *4-6 (E.D. La., June25, 2012); Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2009);
Murawski v. Pataki, 2007 WL 2781054, at *10-11 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Doe v.
MySpace, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 843, 851-852 (W.D. Tex. 2007); Parker v. Google,
Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492, 500-501 (E.D. Pa. 2006); Dimeo v. Max, 433 F. Supp.2d 523, 530-531 (E.D. Pa.), aff’d , 2007 WL 217865 (3d Cir. 2006); Noah v. AOL
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 18 (23 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 19/139
10
This Court too has recognized the protection afforded by Section 230. In a
case involving the interactive computer service TripAdvisor, this Court noted that,
while the case generally concerned content provided by the service itself, “if the
complaint or proposed amended complaint had alleged that TripAdvisor’s users’
statements are defamatory, TripAdvisor cannot be held liable for its users’
statements under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).”
Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC , 728 F.3d 592, 598 n.8 (6th Cir. 2013).4
Numerous state appellate and trial-level courts similarly have concluded that
Section 230 broadly immunizes providers of interactive computer services from
liability for third-party content. For example, the Court of Appeals of New York
has explained that “we follow what may fairly be called the national consensus and
read section 230 as generally immunizing Internet service providers from liability
for third-party content wherever such liability depends on characterizing the
provider as a ‘publisher or speaker’ of objectionable material.” Shiamili v. The
Real Estate Group of New York , 952 N.E.2d 1011, 1017 (N.Y. 2011); see also Hill
v. StubHub, 727 S.E.2d 550, 561 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (StubHub entitled to
Time Warner Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 532, 538-540 (E.D. Va. 2003), aff’d , 2004 WL
602711 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2004); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 50-52(D.D.C. 1998).4 District courts within the Sixth Circuit also have applied Section 230 to barclaims against interactive service providers. See, e.g., Eckert v. Microsoft Corp.,2007 WL 496692, at *3 (E.D. Mich. 2007); see also Backpage.com, LLC v.
Cooper, 939 F. Supp. 2d 805, 824-825 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (enjoining state statute because it likely was preempted by Section 230).
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 19 (24 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 20/139
11
immunity even if it “encouraged the posting of ‘market-based’ prices on its
website or was cognizant of the risk that tickets sold on its website would be priced
in excess of face value” in contravention of state anti-scalping laws); Barrett v.
Rosenthal , 146 P.3d 510, 522-523 (Cal. 2006) (Section 230 “broadly shield[s] all
providers from liability for ‘publishing’ information received from third parties”);
Doe v. America Online, 783 So. 2d 1010, 1018 (Fla. 2001).
Congress has twice ratified this substantial body of case law by enacting
follow-on legislation extending the protections of Section 230 into new areas. See
47 U.S.C. § 941 (extending Section 230 protections to new class of entities); 28
U.S.C. § 4102(c)(1) (providing that U.S. courts “shall not recognize or enforce”
foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with Section 230); see also
H.R. Rep. No. 107-449, at 13 (2002) (“[t]he courts have correctly interpreted
section 230(c)”); Barrett , 146 P.3d at 523 n.17 (statements in H.R. Rep. No. 107-
449 “reflect the Committee’s intent that the existing statutory construction … be
maintained in a new legislative context”).
II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S NARROW CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 230 IS
ERRONEOUS
The district court incorrectly interpreted this established body of Section 230
jurisprudence as establishing a vague protection that vanishes whenever the service
provider merely “encourage[s]” the content at issue. Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t
Recordings, LLC , 840 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1012 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (“ Jones I ”); Jones
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 20 (25 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 21/139
12
v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, LLC , 2013 WL 4068780, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Aug.
12, 2013) (“ Jones II ”). This unprecedented standard is inconsistent with the plain
language of Section 230 and contrary to the case law. Indeed, the very case that
the district court characterized as “[t]he principal precedent” on which it relied5
warned that “close cases … must be resolved in favor of immunity” to avoid
“forcing websites to face death by ten thousand duck-bites, fighting off claims that
they promoted or encouraged—or at least tacitly assented to—the illegality of third
parties.” Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1174.
A. The District Court Applied the Wrong Standard
The text of Section 230 deprives a service provider of statutory protection
only where it is “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development ”
of the particular alleged unlawful content that is at issue—not where the provider
merely “encourage[s]” content provided by a third party. 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3)
(emphasis added). The district court’s standard would expand the meaning of
“development” to the point of negating the very protection that Congress intended
to erect. Virtually every website includes features that invite and encourage users
to enter particular types of content. For example, online marketplaces generally
include functions for a third-party seller to set a price for an item, to state whether
the item is new or used, to categorize the nature or use of the item, and a variety of
5 Jones II , 2013 WL 4068780, at *1; Jones I , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 1010.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 21 (26 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 22/139
13
other information designed to help other users search for items in which they may
be interested and to learn more about those items. Likewise, a site devoted to
reviews of restaurants or other businesses might well have specific language
explaining the value and importance readers place on “negative” reviews and
soliciting users to submit details of their negative experiences with a business.
Under the district court’s standard, however, a website could lose Section
230 immunity on the theory that such characteristics meant that the site
“encouraged” the submission of particular third-party content. That is not a
reasonable interpretation of the terms “creation” or “development.” Indeed, the en
banc decision in Roommates.com specifically cautioned that “the broadest sense of
the term ‘develop’ could include … just about any function performed by a
website,” but that “to read the term so broadly would defeat the purposes of section
230 by swallowing up every bit of the immunity that the section otherwise
provides.” Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1167. The standard conjured by the
district court here would have exactly that effect.
In addition, the trial court’s standard has no basis in Section 230 precedent.
In Roommates.com, the en banc court adopted a far narrower standard for what
constitutes “creation or development” of user content. It held that “development”
refers “not merely to augmenting the content generally, but to materially
contributing to its alleged unlawfulness.” 521 F.3d at 1167-1168 (emphasis
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 22 (27 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 23/139
14
added). The court explained that a web site does not “materially contribute” to the
unlawfulness of third-party content where it merely provides “a framework that
could be utilized for proper or improper purposes” by the user. Id. at 1169, 1172.
Rather, Roommates.com held only that the website operator was not entitled
to immunity with respect to allegedly unlawful content that it effectively required
its users to submit. In that case, as a condition for using an online roommate-
finding service, each user seeking to offer living space had to create a profile
describing his/her desired roommate and, in doing so, was “require[d] … to
disclose his sex, sexual orientation and whether he would bring children to a
household” and to “describe his preferences in roommates with respect to the same
three criteria.” 521 F.3d at 1161 (emphasis added). The site also designed its
search functions to “steer” users to listings based on users’ answers to the
discriminatory questions posed by the site. Id. at 1167. In those circumstances,
the Ninth Circuit held that Roommates.com had “materially contributed” to the
content at issue because it “force[d]” users to answer “discriminatory questions”
allegedly in violation of housing discrimination laws. Id. at 1166-1167. In other
words, that specific discriminatory content was the direct and necessary result of
the site operator’s own discriminatory questions.
Courts have consistently interpreted Roommates.com as recognizing “only a
narrow exception” to Section 230’s broad grant of immunity, applicable only
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 23 (28 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 24/139
15
where the service provider materially contributed to the content that is alleged to
be unlawful by requiring the user to provide that specific content. Goddard , 640 F.
Supp. 2d at 1198. In Nemet Chevrolet , for example, the Fourth Circuit expressly
distinguished Roommates.com on this ground, refusing to strip a website operator
of immunity based on a claim that the operator had “structured its website and its
business operations to develop” third-party complaints about businesses, even
where the operator was alleged to have solicited and asked questions about the
complaints and revised or redrafted user content. 591 F.3d at 257.
Other courts have held, since Roommates.com, that a search engine provider
retains its immunity where the provider offers a tool that suggests keywords to
potential advertisers—even when those keywords allegedly contributed to fraud—
because the tool “does nothing more than provide options that advertisers may
adopt or reject at their discretion.” Goddard , 640 F. Supp. 2d at 1198; see also
Jurin v. Google Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (same); Doe v.
MySpace, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 663, 665 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ( Roommates.com “not
applicable” because “users of MySpace.com are not required to provide any
additional information to their profiles” (emphasis added)); Atlantic Recording
Corp. v. Project Playlist, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 2d 690, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).6
6 Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, also illustrates how the district
court’s “encouragement” standard is contrary to longstanding Section 230 precedent. There, the Internet service provider AOL had contracted with the
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 24 (29 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 25/139
16
The district court’s reliance on FTC v. Accusearch Inc., 570 F.3d 1187 (10th
Cir. 2009), was similarly misplaced. In that case, the website offered to provide
users with detailed telephone records for any phone number and then paid
“researchers” to obtain those records. Id. at 1199. The court held the website was
not entitled to immunity because acquisition of such confidential telephone records
is inevitably unlawful (e.g., because federal law generally prohibits telephone
companies from disclosing such information). Id. at 1200. Once again, the site
required the dissemination of content that was necessarily unlawful.7
author of an online gossip column, Matt Drudge, to carry the column on its onlineservice; paid Drudge substantial royalties; promoted him as a “Runaway GossipSuccess” and his column as a source for “gossip and rumor”; and reserved (but didnot exercise) the right to edit Drudge’s content. Id. at 51. Notwithstanding thesefacts—which go well beyond those at issue here—the court found that AOL wasnot an “information content provider” of allegedly defamatory content in thecolumn written by Drudge. The court held that AOL was immune under Section230 because Congress had made a “policy choice” in Section 230 to “provid[e]immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, evenaggressive role in making available content prepared by others.” Id. at 52.7 The district court’s also erroneously relied on Johnson, 614 F.3d 785, and
Chicago Lawyers’ Comm., 519 F. 3d 666. In those cases, the courts held thatSection 230 immunized the service providers from liability. Both courts noted insupport of those holdings that the providers had done nothing that could even besaid to induce unlawful content. Johnson, 614 F.3d at 792; Chicago Lawyers’
Comm., 519 F.3d at 671-672. But neither court held that such inducement coulddeprive a service provider of immunity—indeed, given the absence of any factssuggesting such inducement, neither court was even faced with that question.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 25 (30 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 26/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 27/139
18
The only relevant question under the statute is whether the website operator
was responsible for the “creation or development ” of the allegedly tortious content.
See, e.g., Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003)
(key issue is whether service provider “created or developed the particular
information at issue”); Nemet , 591 F.3d at 260 (affirming dismissal where plaintiff
failed to show defendant “was responsible for the creation or development of the
allegedly defamatory content at issue ” (emphasis added)); Gentry v. eBay, Inc.,
121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703, 717 n.11 (“The critical issue is whether eBay acted as an
information content provider with respect to the information that appellants claim
is false or misleading.”).
By definition, remarks that a website operator adds in response to a third-
party post are made after that post has been created and developed and therefore
cannot have played a role in that post’s creation or development. To the extent the
court below was suggesting that the site operator’s own remarks could encourage
future unlawful postings, as discussed above, such encouragement—even assuming
it exists—is a far cry from the “creation or development” of any such postings.
The same is true of the name of the site, which the court below also cited as a
factor that encouraged submission of unlawful content. Jones I , 840 F. Supp. 2d at
1012; Jones II , 2013 WL 4068780, at *3. However distasteful the site at issue here
may be, gossip posted on the site is not necessarily unlawful (e.g., it may be true),
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 27 (32 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 28/139
19
and, unlike the facts in Roommates.com, nothing about the site operator’s own
remarks in any way required or forced users to post unlawful content. If a service
provider were at risk of losing the protection of Section 230 based on speculation
that the name of its site, some features of its service, or some content it originated
could be interpreted to have indirectly encouraged unlawful content, service
providers would, as the Ninth Circuit warned, “face death by ten thousand duck-
bites, fighting off claims that they promoted or encouraged—or at least tacitly
assented to—the illegality of third parties.” Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1174.
The court below also pointed to several editorial considerations that it
suggested should deprive a service provider of the protections of Section 230,
noting in particular that the defendant selects which submissions will be posted,
“reviews the postings but does not verify their accuracy,” and decides whether a
posting should be removed in response to an objection. Jones I , 840 F. Supp. 2d at
1012. But, as discussed below, Congress intended Section 230 to encourage
precisely these forms of self-regulation. If service providers were to face the threat
of losing Section 230 immunity by reviewing third-party content and deciding
whether to remove it when someone objects to it, the provider would have a
perverse incentive simply to eschew all review and ignore all objections. It was
exactly this incentive that Congress sought to eliminate by enacting Section 230.
See infra pp. 24-26. Moreover, the case law is clear that service providers do not
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 28 (33 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 29/139
20
lose the protections of Section 230 for engaging in routine editorial functions such
as selecting what third-party content to post or remove. As the Fourth Circuit
explained, under Section 230 “lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for
its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding
whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content—are barred.” Zeran, 129
F.3d at 330. The court in Batzel likewise held:
Nor do [defendant’s] minor alterations of [an] e-mail prior to its posting or his choice to publish the e-mail (while rejecting other e-
mails for inclusion in the listserv) rise to the level of ‘development.’As we have seen, a central purpose of the Act was to protect fromliability service providers and users who take some affirmative stepsto edit the material posted. Also, the exclusion of ‘publisher’ liabilitynecessarily precludes liability for exercising the usual prerogative of
publishers to choose among proffered material and to edit the material published while retaining its basic form and message.
333 F.3d at 1031.
III. THE PREVAILING INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 230 PROMOTES ITS
PURPOSES AND HAS BEEN CRITICAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH
OF THE INTERNET.
A. Section 230 Promotes Free Speech and Online Commerce
Congress enacted Section 230 both to protect free speech on the Internet and
to foster the growth of online marketplaces and exchanges free from state laws and
regulations that, if applied to online intermediaries, would threaten to cripple
vibrant discourse and commerce on the Internet. Carafano, 339 F.3d at 1122
(Section 230 enacted “to promote the free exchange of information and ideas over
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 29 (34 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 30/139
21
the Internet”); Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330 (Congress enacted Section 230 to promote
“freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium” by eliminating
the “threat [of] tort-based lawsuits” against interactive services for injury caused
by “the communications of others”); Batzel , 333 F.3d at 1018 (Section 230
intended to “promote the development of e-commerce”).
Congress expressly found that the Internet and interactive computer services
offer “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for
cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity,” 47 U.S.C.
§ 230(a)(3), and that such services “have flourished, to the benefit of all
Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.” Id. § 230(a)(4). Congress
further stated that it is “the policy of the United States … to preserve the vibrant
and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other
interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” Id .
§ 230(b)(2) (emphasis added). As the Fourth Circuit explained in Zeran,
The imposition of tort liability on service providers for thecommunications of others represented, for Congress, simply anotherform of intrusive government regulation of speech. Section 230 wasenacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internetcommunication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in
the medium to a minimum.
129 F.3d at 330.
Courts have repeatedly recognized that Congress’s enacted policy
declarations support a broad reading of Section 230(c)(1). The Ninth Circuit
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 30 (35 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 31/139
22
explained that “making interactive computer services … liable for the speech of
third parties would severely restrict the information available on the Internet.”
Batzel , 333 F.3d at 1027. Given the “staggering” volume of third-party content
that they carry, and “[f]aced with potential liability for each message republished
by their services,” see Zeran, 129 F.3d at 331, such services likely would be
forced, absent Section 230’s protection, to restrict or abandon many of the features
that enable the dissemination of third-party content. Moreover, to avoid risks of
litigation and liability, service providers often would have little choice but to
remove third-party content claimed by anyone to be tortious or unlawful,
effectively creating a “heckler’s veto” of a kind that courts have routinely
recognized is antithetical to free speech values. Thus, as the Fourth Circuit
recognized, “[t]he specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would
have an obvious chilling effect.” Id.; see also Batzel , 333 F.3d at 1028
(Section 230 was passed “to prevent lawsuits from shutting down websites and
other services on the Internet”).
Under the protection of Section 230—and consistent with Congress’s
intent—interactive computer services that allow users to speak, interact, and
transact have experienced tremendous growth in the 17 years since the statute’s
enactment. The Amici are now household names with hundreds of millions of
users, and collectively they serve as platforms for billions of dollars in transactions
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 31 (36 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 32/139
23
among users annually and innumerable communications in the forms of postings,
tweets, blogs, comments, and other third-party expression. Some or all of the
Amici might have to change their business models or curtail their services in
significant ways if the prevailing interpretation of Section 230 were narrowed.8
The district court’s “encouragement” standard, for example, would blur the line
between content provided by third parties and content created or developed by the
service provider itself, opening the door to burdensome litigation and possibly
crushing liability based merely on factors such as a site’s name or features designed
to facilitate third-party content submission. Even the threat of such litigation and
liability would chill service provider offerings and steer them away from innovative
or controversial subjects—the opposite of what Congress intended.
8 Indeed, several of the Amici have done just that when operating onlineservices in countries that lack the equivalent of Section 230 protection. Forinstance, some Amici remove content from non-U.S. services based on allegationsof defamation by businesses subject to critical reviews, even though Amici are notin a position to determine whether those reviews are truthful. This undoubtedlyleads to the blocking of valuable speech. Additionally, removing liability
protection could significantly curtail investment in interactive service providers.See, e.g., Booz & Co., The Impact of U.S. Internet Copyright Regulations on
Early-Stage Investment 21 (2012) (finding, in the copyright context, that 81% ofangel investors would prefer to invest under current U.S. liability rules with a weakeconomy than under a regime with increased liability even with a strong economy),available at http://www.booz.com/global/home/what-we-think/reports-white-
papers/article-display/impact-internet-copyright-regulations-early-2.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 32 (37 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 33/139
24
B. Section 230 Immunity Gives Service Providers Room To Self-
Regulate
The court below erroneously suggested that a broad interpretation of Section
230 would undermine the statute’s purposes, apparently on a supposition that it
would discourage service providers from blocking or removing offensive content.
See Jones II , 2013 WL 4068780 at *2-3. But just the opposite is true. Congress
specifically enacted Section 230 to address the perverse effects of applying pre-
existing liability regimes, such as the common law of defamation, to online
intermediaries. Those effects were exemplified by a 1995 court ruling, Stratton
Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24,
1995), which held that, under traditional common law doctrine, the provider of an
electronic message board service was potentially liable for its user’s defamatory
message specifically because it had engaged in voluntary self-policing of the third-
party content available through its service. One purpose of Section 230 was to
overturn this precedent, which created disincentives for online intermediaries to
engage in self -regulation. S. Rep. No. 104-230, at 194 (1996) (“One of the specific
purposes of [Section 230] is to overrule Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy and any other
similar decisions … .”); see also, e.g., Zeran, 129 F.3d at 331 (“Another important
purpose of § 230 was to encourage service providers to self-regulate the
dissemination of offensive material over their services. In this respect, § 230
responded to [Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy].”).
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 33 (38 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 34/139
25
Congress concluded that service providers may voluntarily and
constructively self-regulate so as to restrict the availability of objectionable third-
party material in ways that are appropriately tailored to the nature, design, and
user-base of their services. Congress sought to achieve this goal by “encourag[ing]
service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their
services.” Zeran, 129 F.3d at 331; Carafano 339 F.3d at 1122 (Congress enacted
Section 230 “to encourage voluntary monitoring for offensive or obscene
material”); 141 Cong. Rec. 22,046 (Section 230 was designed to give interactive
service providers “a reasonable way to … help them self-regulate themselves
without penalty of law”) (statement of Rep. Barton).
Congress recognized that a legal regime in which liability may accrue when
a service provider has notice of allegedly unlawful content but fails to act would
perversely “reinforce[] service providers’ incentives to … abstain from self-
regulation,” for fear of being held liable for anything a jury determines they should
have uncovered in the course of their efforts to monitor their services. See Zeran,
129 F.3d at 333 (“Any efforts by a service provider to investigate and screen
material posted on its service would only lead to notice of potentially defamatory
material more frequently and thereby create a stronger basis for liability.”). By
enacting Section 230, Congress freed service providers to adopt robust self-
regulatory regimes, experiment with different approaches to self-regulation,
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 34 (39 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 35/139
26
implement novel technical solutions, and otherwise respond to the demands of the
marketplace and the possibilities of technology without fear that by doing so they
would expose themselves to liability.
This is precisely what these Amici and many other service providers have
done. For example, many service providers take steps such as
• supplying links, e-mail addresses, flagging and “report abuse” buttons,
and other mechanisms for users to report complaints about particular
content;9
• specifying and enforcing “community guidelines,” terms of service, and
other rules and standards for third-party content;10
9 See, e.g., Twitter, I’m reporting an abusive user (form for filing complaint
about, among other things, threats, abuse, and posting of private information),available at https://support.twitter.com/forms/abusiveuser; LinkedIn, Complaints
Regarding Content Posted on the LinkedIn Website (describing mechanisms forsubmitting complaints), available at http://www.linkedin.com/legal/copyright-
policy#pri-2; Facebook, Report a Violation, available at https://www.facebook.com/help/263149623790594/; YouTube Reporting and Enforcement Center,available at http://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/ reporting.html.10
See, e.g., Facebook Community Standards, available at https://www.face book.com/communitystandards; Google Terms of Service (“We may suspend or
stop providing our Services to you if you do not comply with our terms or policiesor if we are investigating suspected misconduct.”), available at https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/; Microsoft Code of Conduct, available at http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-live/code-of-conduct; The Twitter Rules,available at http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules#; TumblrCommunity Guidelines, available at http://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/community;LinkedIn User Agreement (containing list of “DOS and DON’Ts”), available at
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 35 (40 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 36/139
27
• employing technological means to detect and remove or block particular
kinds of content, such as child pornography; and
• monitoring message boards, chat rooms, and other areas with third-party
content; responding to complaints; and removing third-party content for
violations of law or the service’s rules or policies.11
Thus, the district court’s apparent supposition that a broad reading of the scope of
Section 230(c)(1)’s protections would cause service providers to eschew self-
policing of their services is demonstrably wrong.
At the same time, the district court’s suggestion that Section 230 protects
only “those who remove offensive content,” Jones II , 2013 WL 4068780 at *3,
finds no support in the statutory language or case law.12
To the contrary, service
providers have repeatedly been held immune under Section 230 even when they
allegedly received notice of the offending content and failed to remove it. See,
http://www.linkedin.com/ legal/user-agreement; LinkedIn Professional CommunityGuidelines, available at http://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/34593.11 See, e.g., eBay, When eBay may remove or adjust Feedback (describingcertain circumstances under which eBay will remove third-party), available at http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/feedback-removal.html; eBay, How to Report
inappropriate buying and selling , available at http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/
report-trading.html#wont.12
Section 230 contains a separate immunity provision that generally protectsservice providers from liability for actions “voluntarily” taken in good faith toremove unlawful or objectionable content. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2) (emphasisadded). But nothing in that immunity provision or elsewhere in Section 230requires service providers to take such actions in order to retain the protection ofsection 230(c)(1).
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 36 (41 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 37/139
28
e.g., Zeran, 129 F.3d at 331-332; Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1169 n.24
(immunity extends to claims “based on a website operator’s passive acquiescence
in the misconduct of its users”); Green, 318 F.3d at 471 (ISP not liable for failing
to monitor, screen, or delete allegedly defamatory third-party content); Johnson,
614 F.3d at 791 (“The district court, following majority circuit precedent, held that
§ 230(c)(1) blocks civil liability when web hosts and other ISPs refrain from
filtering or censoring the information that third parties created on their sites.”);
Goddard v. Google, Inc., 2008 WL 5245490, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008)
(“[E]ven if a service provider knows that third parties are using such tools to create
illegal content, the service provider’s failure to intervene is immunized.”).
In sum, Congress created a regime that removed legal disincentives to self-
regulation of objectionable content, while at the same time declining to impose
government regulation imposing particular steps a service provider must take to
remove third-party content. The prevailing interpretation of Section 230
implements Congress’s policy choice; the district court’s interpretation would
undermine it.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 37 (42 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 38/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 39/139
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the foregoing brief complies with the type-volume limitation
provided in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B). The foregoing brief
uses Times New Roman (14-point) proportional type, and contains 6,924 words,
exclusive of exempted portions.
/s/ Patrick J. CaromePATRICK J. CAROME
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 39 (44 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 40/139
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on November 19, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing
Brief for Amici Curiae AOL Inc., eBay Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google Inc., LinkedIn
Corp., Microsoft Corp., Tumblr, Inc., Twitter, Inc., and Zynga Inc. with the Clerk
of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit using the
Court’s CM/ECF System. Counsel for all parties are registered CM/ECF users and
will be served with the foregoing document by the Court’s CM/ECF system.
/s/ Samir C. JainSAMIR C. JAIN
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887635 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 40 (45 of
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 41/139
Case No.13-5946
INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESIXTHCIRCUIT
SARAHJONES
P l a i n t i f f/Appellee,
v s .
DIRTYWORLDENTERTAINMENTRECORDINGS LC
e t a l .
Defendants/Appellants
On pp eal from h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court
f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t of entuckyCase No. 9-CV-219-WOB i s t r i c t Court Judge William O. ertelsman
AMICUSCURIAEBRIEFBYONLINESERVICEPROVIDERS
BRUCE .H.JOHNSON
JAlV~S C.GRANT
~ 1 . 1 V I B I K A K.DORAN
DAVISWRIGHTTREMAINELLP
1201 Third Avenue, u i t e 2200
S e a t t l e Washington 98101
T e l : (206) 22-3150
Fax: (206) 57-7700
THOMAS .BURKE
DAVISWRIGHTTREMAINELLP
505 Montgomery t r e e t S u i t e 80 0
San r a n c i s c o C a l i f o r n i a 94111
T e l : (415) 76-6500
Fax: (415) 76-6599
JOHN .GREINER
NICHOLAS . ZIEPFEL
GRAYDON HEAD ITCHEYLLP
1900 i f t h Thi rd Center
511 Wal nut t r e e t
C i n c i n n a t i OH 5202-3157
T e l : (513) 29-2731
Fax: (513) 51-3836
JAMESROSENFELD
DAMSWRIGHTTREMAINELLP
1633 Broadway, 7th Floor
New ork,NY 0019
T e l : (212) 89-8230
Fax: (212) 89-8340
Attorneys o r Amici Curiae Advance u b l i c a t i o n s I n c . Amazon.com, n c .
Awo n c . Buzzfeed, n c . Cable News etwork, n c . Curbed.com LLC
Gawker Media,LLC agazine u b l i s h e r s of merica, n c .
T h e McClatchy Company, he e p o r t e r s Committee o r Freedom of h e P r e s s
TripAdvisorLLC ahoo n c . and Yelp n c .
1
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 1
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 42/139
CORPORATEDISCLOSURESTATEMENT
Pursuant o S i x t h C i r c u i t Rule 2 6 . 1 Amici Advance P u b l i c a t i o n s n c .
Amazon.com, n c . Awo n c . Buzzfeed, n c . Cable News Network, n c .
Curbed.com LLC awker Media,LLC agazine P u b l i s h e r s of America, n c .
The McClatchy Company, The R e p o r t e r s Committee f o r Freedom of h e P r e s s
T r i p A d v i s o r LLC ahoo n c . and Yelp I n c . m a k e t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c l o s u r e s :
Adv a n c e u b l i c a t i o n s n c . ; Awo n c . ; Buzzfeed, n c . ; Cu r bed.com LLC;
G a w k e r Media,LLC; a g azin e Publishers of America, n c . ; Th e Reporters
Commit t ee for F r e e dom of the P r e s s ; Yahoo n c . ; a n d Yelp Inc.
1 . I s s a i d p a r t y a s u b s i d i a r y o r f f i l i t e of a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n ? No .
2 . I s t h e r e a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a p p e a l t h a t has a
f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e outcome? Not o t h e knowledge of a i d p a r t y .
Amazon.com, nc.
1 . I s s a i d p a r t y a s u b s i d i a r y o r f f i l i t e of a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n ?
Amazon.com, n c . i s a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n .
2 . I s t h e r e a p u b l i c l y owned c o r p o r a t i o n n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a p p e a l h a t has a
f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e outcome? Not o t h e knowledge of a i d p a r t y .
2
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 2
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 43/139
The McClatchy ompany
I s s a i d p a r t y a u b s i d i a r y o r a f f i l i a t e of u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n ? The
McClatchy Company s a u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n .
2 . I s t h e r e a u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n not a a r t y t o t h e a p p e a l t h a t has a
f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e outcome? Not o t h e knowledge of a i d p a r t y .
Cable News Network n c .
1 . I s s a i d p a r t y a u b s i d i a r y o r a f f i l i a t e of u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n ? Yes.
Cable News etwork n c . i s a wholly owned u b s i d i a r y of Turner r o a d c a s t i n g
System n c . which s a wholly owned u b s i d i a r y of Time Warner n c . a u b l i c l y
t r a d e d c o r p o r a t i o n .
2 . I s t h e r e a u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n not a a r t y t o t h e a p p e a l t h a t has a
f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e outcome? Not o t h e knowledge of a i d p a r t y .
TripAdvisorLL
I s s a i d p a r t y a u b s i d i a r y o r a f f i l i a t e of u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n ?
Yes. T r i p A d v i s o r LL s a u b s i d i a r y of r i p A d v i s o r n c . T r i p A d v i s o r I n c . i s
p u b l i c l y t r a d e d .
2 . I s t h e r e a u b l i c l y owned o r p o r a t i o n not a a r t y t o t h e a p p e a l t h a t has a
f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e outcome? Not o t h e knowledge of a i d p a r t y .
j
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 3
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 44/139
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Page
I . INTERESTOFAMICICURIAE 1
I I . AUTHORITYTO ILE 1
I I L INTRODUCTION ND L ~ ` v I l V I A R Y OF RGLJIVMENT 1
IV. ARGUMENT 4
A. Congress Intended S e c t i o n 230 o Promote Free Speech o n h e
I n t e r n e t and Encourage Online S e r v i c e Providers o P o l i c e
C o n t e n t 4
B. S e c t i o n 230 Provides Broad Immunit y o Online S e r v i c e Providers
f o r Claims Based on Third- P a r t y Content 6
C . The i s t r i c t Court i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d P r i o r Cases o I n t e r p r e t
S e c t i o n 230 Immunity More e s t r i c t i v e l y Than Any ther o u r t . . . . . .9
D The i s t r i c t C o u r t s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Threatens to S t r i p Online
S e r v i c e Providers of e c t i o n 230 Immunity Based on Common
and Laudable r a c t i c e s 1 6
1 . Exercising T r a d i t i o n a l E d i t o r i a l Functions 16
2 . Failing o Remove l l e g e d l y Unlawful Content f t e r Notice..17
3 . Focus on n t i r e Website Rather than S p e c i f i c C o n t e n t 18
4 . Website Name 21
S . I n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h CommonLaw efamation 22
6 . I m p l i c i t l y Adopting Third Part y Content . 23
E. The i s t r i c t C o u r t s Unprecedented n t e r p r e t a t i o n of e c t i o n 230
Threatens Speech Across the n t e r n e t 24
i
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 4
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 45/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 46/139
Federal TNade Commission v . Accusearch,
570 F.3d 1187 10th C i r . 2009 p a s s i m
Gentry . Ebay, n c . ,
99 al. App. th 816, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703 002) 19
Global o y a l t i e s , L t d . v . Xcentric V e n t u r e s , LLC,
544 F. Supp. 2d 929 D. Ariz. 2008) 22
Goddard . Google, n c . ,
640 . Supp. 2d 1193(N.D. Cal. 2009) 13
GW quity LLC . X c e n t r ~ i c VenturesLLC,
2009WL 2173 N.D. Tex. an. 009 22
Hill . StubHub, n c . ,
727 S.E.2d 550 N.C. App. 2012) 8, 15,20
Johnson v . Aden,
614 .3d 785(8th C i r . 2010) 7, 10
Jones . Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, L.L.C.
766 F. Supp. 2d 828 E.D. Ky. 011) 9, 17, 19
Jones . Duty World Entertainment Recordings, L.L.C.,
840 F. Supp. 2d 1108(E.D.Ky. 012) p a s s i m
Jones . Dirty World Entertainment ecordings, L.L.C.,
2013WL 068780 E.D. Ky. u g . 12,2013) p a s s i m
L e v i t t v . Yelp n c . ,
2011 WL 079526 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26,2011) 26
M.A. . V i l l a g e Voice Media Holdings,LLC,
809 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (E.D.Mo. 011) 17
Nemet h e v r o l e t , Ltd. . Consumeraffairs.com, n c . ,
591 F.3d 250 4th C i r . 2009) 6,8
Parisi . S i n c l a i r ,
774 F. Supp. 2d 310 D.D.G 2011) 24
i i i
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 6
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 47/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 48/139
Other Authorities
S. Conf. Rep. No . 104-230 1996) 4
E- o~R E NTENTLAw .05 L L D S i i ] 9
u
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 8
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 49/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 50/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 51/139
what Congress chose t o d o . The c o u r t s u g g e s t e d t h a t a w e b s i t e can be i a b l e j u s t
b e c a u s e i t s e l e c t s p o s t s t o p u b l i s h , does not e r i f y t h e i r a c c u r a c y , and a i l s t o
remove them upon o t i c e . But h e s e a r e a l l p u b l i s h e r f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n S e c t i o n
230's s c o p e . The c o u r t a l s o found a w e b s i t e may be i a b l e merely b e c a u s e o f t s
n a m e and t e n o r , b u t t h e c a s e law p r o h i b i t s h o l d i n g a p r o v i d e r l i a b l e f o r i m p l i c i t l y
encouraging o n t e n t . U l t i m a t e l y , t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d S e c t i o n 2 3 0 only
provides] r o t e c t i o n f o r s i t e owners w h o l l o w p o s t i n g s by h i r d p a r t i e s w i t h o u t
s c r e e n i n g them and t h o s e w h o remove o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t . 2 0 1 3 W 068780, t
*3 Aug. 2 , 2013). But h i s i s n o t what e c t i o n 2 3 0 a y s . T h i s s t a n d a r d d i r e c t l y
c o n t r a v e n e s C o n g r e s s ' s i n t e n t , and i f t i s u p h e l d , p r o v i d e r s w i l l have t h e p e r v e r s e
i n c e n t i v e n o t o review t h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t a t a l l f o r f e a r o f i a b i l i t y .
Eight i r c u i t s have e n f o r c e d t h e s e c o r e S e c t i o n 2 3 0 r o t e c t i o n s . This Court
n o w has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e i n f o r c e t h e same l e a r g u i d a n c e about h e l a w ' s b r o a d
immunity. At bottom, h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n upends h a t g u i d a n c e ,
imposing i n s t e a d t h e n e b u l o u s view t h a t i f a udge o r u r y f i n d s a w e b s i t e i s
s o m e h o w o f f e n s i v e and e n c o u r a g e s u s e r s t o submit o n t e n t , t h e w e b s i t e p r o v i d e r
l o s e s immunity. This would t h r e a t e n o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a c r o s s t h e I n t e r n e t
and s i g n i f i c a n t l y c h i l l o n l i n e s p e e c h . S e c t i o n 2 3 0 e q u i r e s u s t t h e o p p o s i t e .
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 11
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 52/139
IV. ARGUMENT
A. Congress Intended S e c t i o n 230 to Promote Free Speech on the
Internet and Encourage Online Service Providers to o l i c e Content.
In e n a c t i n g S e c t i o n 230, ongress had two e x p r e s s g o a l s . F i r s t , t sought o
encourage t h e u n f e t t e r e d and u n r e g u l a t e d development of r e e speech on h e
I n t e r n e t , and o promote h e development of -commerce. Batzel . Smith,333
F.3d 1018, 1027 9th C i r . 2003); ee also Ben zra, Weinstein, o. . Am
Online n c . , 206 F.3d 980, 85 . 3 (10th C i r . 2000) S e c t i o n 230 s meant t o
promote freedom of peech ) ; 47 U.S.C.§ 3 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) S e c t i o n 230 s i n t e n d e d
t o p r e s e r v e t h e v i b r a n t and c o m p e t i t i v e f r e e market h a t p r e s e n t l y e x i s t s f o r t h e
I n t e r n e t . ) . Second, t hoped o encourage s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s t o s e l f-r e g u l a t e t h e
d i s s e m i n a t i o n of f f e n s i v e m a t e ri a l over h e i r s e r v i c e s . Z e r ~ a n v Am n l i n e , I n c . ,
129 F.3d 327,331 (4th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ; see a t z e l , 333 F.3d a t 1028 c i t i n g 47 U.S.C.
§ 3 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , and 141 Cong. ec. H8469- 7 0 ) .
Congress made h e s e g o a l s m a n i f e s t i n o v e r r u l i n g S t r a t t o n Oakmont, n c . v .
Prodigy e r v i c e s Co., 1995 WL 23710 N.Y. Sup. t . May 4, 9 9 5 ) , a a s e
h o l d i n g o n l i n e s e r v i c e Prodigy i a b l e f o r defamatory comments o s t e d by a s e r t o
one of t s b u l l e t i n b o a r d s . See S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230 1996) e x p r e s s i n g i n t e n t
t o o v e r r u l e S t r a t t o n Oakmont and any t h e r s i m i l a r d e c i s i o n s ) . Because Prodigy
a c t i v e l y s c r e e n e d and e d i t e d b u l l e t i n board messages o p r e v e n t o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t ,
t h e c o u r t a p p l i e d common aw p u b l i s h e r ( r a t h e r than d i s t r i b u t o r ) p r i n c i p l e s ,
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 12
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 53/139
meaning h a t Prodigy c o u l d be l i a b l e f o r p o s t s even f t d i d not know o r have any
r e a s o n t o know h e y were d e f a m a t o r y . I d . a t *5.
By v e r r u l i n g t h i s r e s u l t , Congress e l i m i n a t e d t h e grim choice such a u l e
would p r e s e n t t o o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s , . e . t h o s e t h a t v o l u n t a r i l y f i l t e r c o n t e n t
would be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l p o s t s , w h i l e p r o v i d e r s t h a t bury h e i r heads n t h e
sand and g n o r e p r o b l e m a t i c p o s t s would e s c a p e l i a b i l i t y a l t o g e t h e r . Fair
Housing Council o f a n F e r nan d o V a l l e y v . R o o m m a t e s . c o m LLC 21 F . 3 d 1157,
1 163 9 t h C i r . 2008) en b a n c ) ; see a l s o B a t z e l , 333 F.3d a t 1029 If f f o r t s t o
review and omit h i r d- p a r t y d e f a m a t o r y , obscene o r i n a p p r o p r i a t e m a t e r i a l make a
computer s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r o r u s e r l i a b l e f o r p o s t e d s p e e c h , , h e n w e b s i t e o p e r a t o r s
and n t e r n e t s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a r e l i k e l y t o abandon f f o r t s t o e l i m i n a t e such
m a t e r i a l from t h e i r s i t e [ s ] . ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ) .
S e c t i o n 230 e c o g n i z e s t h e I n t e r n e t ' s pr a c t i c a l r e a l i t i e s . I n t e r a c t i v e
computer s e r v i c e s have m i l l i o n s o f s e r s [and h e ] am ou n t o f n f o r m a t i o n
communicated . . . i s . . . s t a g g e r i n g . Zeran, 129 F.3d a t 331. I t i s simply
i m p o s s i b l e f o r o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s t o s c r e e n a l l o f h e i r u s e r c o n t e n t . I d .
S e c t i o n 230 h e r e f o r e sought o p r e v e n t l a w s u i t s from s h u t t i n g d ow n w e b s i t e s and
o t h e r s e r v i c e s o n h e I n t e r n e t , B a t z e l , 333 F.3d a t 1028, and t d i d so by b a r [ r i n g ]
s t a t e- l a w p l a i n t i f f s from h o l d i n g i n t e r a c t i v e computer s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s l e g a l l y
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n f o r m a t i o n c r e a t e d and developed by h i r d p a r t i e s , Ne m e t
5
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 13
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 54/139
ChevNOlet, Ltd. v . Consume~affai~s.com, n c . , 591 F.3d 250,254 4th Cir. 2009).
The p e c t e r o f o r t l i a b i l i t y in a n area o f such p r o l i f i c sp eech wou l d h a v e an
obvious c h i l l i n g e f f e c t , because faced with p o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i t y f o r e a c h message
republished . . . , providers mig ht choose to severely r e s t r i c t t h e n u m b e r a n d type o f
messages posted. Z e r a n , 129 F.3d a t 331.
Section 230 l s o r e f l e c t s t h e r e a l i t y t h a t some aterial posted on h e I n t e r n e t
m i gh t b e offensive or harmful. But ongress made choice t h a t , while i n j u r e d
p a r t i e s may ue t h e users who reated the content, t h e y may ot sue t h e i n t e r a c t i v e
compu ter s e r v i c e t h a t enabled users to publish the content. See, e . g . , Doe .
M y S p a c e , n c . , 528 F.3 d 413,419 5th C i r . 2008) finding s o c i a l networking s i t e
immune or claims p r emised o n sexual a s s a u l t r e s u l t i n g f r o m online meeting);
C a~afano v . Met~osplash, n c . , 339 .3 d 1119, 1123 (9th C i r . 2003) m a t c h m a k i n g
website immune r o m claims s t e m m i n g f r o m fake p r o f i l e t h a t led to t h r e a t s made
against the p l a i n t i f f , whom user h a d impersonated); Ze~an, 129 F.3 d a t 331(AOL
immune or publishing f a l s e advertisements created b y users a n d f a i l i n g to r e m o v e
t h e m p r omp tly e v e n t h ough p l a i n t i f f received death t h r e a t s as a r e s u l t ) .
B. Section 230 r o v i d e s Broad Immunity o O n l i n e Service P r o v i d e r s for
C l a i m s Ba s e d on T h i r d-Part y C ont en t .
Section 230 t a t e s : No rovider or user o f a n n t e r a c t i v e c o m p u t e r s e r v i c e
s h a l l be t r e a t e d as the publisher or speaker o f a n y information provided b y another
information content provider. 47 . S . C .§ 30(c)(1). Courts h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s
D
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 14
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 55/139
language t o c r e a t e a t h r e e - p a r t t e s t , under which a d e f e n d a n t i s imm u n e i£ (1) t i s
a p r o v i d e r . . . of an n t e r a c t i v e computer e r v i c e , (2) h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m t r e a t s i t
a s t h e p u b l i s h e r o r s p e a k e r of n f o r m a t i o n , a n d (3) h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r o v i d e d
by a n o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e n t p r o v i d e r . S e e B a t z e l , 333 F.3d a t 1037; U n i v e r s a l
Comm'n y s . , I n c . v . Lycos, n c . , 478 F.3d 413,418 1 s t C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) .
There i s n o d i s p u t e i n t h i s c a s e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s s a t i s f i e d t h e f i r s t t wo
p a r t s of h i s t e s t . I n s t e a d , t h e p l a i n t i f f a r g u e d , a n d t h e c o u r t a g r e e d , t h a t t h e
d e f e n d a n t s were t h e m s e l v e s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e n t p r o v i d e r [ s ] f o r t h e a l l e g e d l y
d e f a m a t o r y p o s t s . S e c t i o n 230 d e f i n e s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e n t p r o v i d e r a s a n y
p e r s o n o r e n t i t y t h a t s r e s p o n s i b l e , n whole o r i n p a r t , f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o r
development of n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h r o u g h t h e I n t e r n e t o r any o t h e r i n t e r a c t i v e
computer s e r v i c e . 47 U.S.C.§ 300(3).
C o n s i s t e n t w i t h C o n g r e s s ' s i n t e n t , [ t ] h e m a j o r i t y of e d e r a l c i r c u i t s have
i n t e r p r e t e d t h e CDA o e s t a b l i s h b r o a d f e d e r a l immunity o any c a u s e of c t i o n t h a t
would make e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s l i a b l e f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o r i g i n a t i n g w i t h a t h i r d - p a r t y
u s e r of h e s e r v i c e . Johnson v . A r d e n ,614 F.3d 785, 791 8 t h C i r . 2010) i n t e r n a l
q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; Lycos,478 F.3d a t 418 c o u r t s t h a t have a d d r e s s e d t h e s e
i s s u e s have g e n e r a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d S e c t i o n 230 immunity b r o a d l y ) . Perhaps
more m p o r t a n t h e r e , n t r e a t i n g S e c t i o n 230 immunity a s q u i t e r o b u s t , c o u r t s
have a d o p t [ e d ] a e l a t i v e l y e x p a n s i v e d e f i n i t i o n of i n t e r a c t i v e computer e r v i c e '
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 15
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 56/139
and a e l a t i v e l y r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n content r o v i d e r . ' Carafano,
339 F.3d a t 1123 § 230(c) rovides broad immunity o r p u b l i s h i n g c o n t e n t
provided p r i m a r i l y b y h i r d p a r t i e s ) . 5
To a t e , s o m e 300 e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n s have construed S e c t i o n 230, and [ a ] 1 1
but a handful . . f i n d t h a t t h e website s e n t i t l e d t o immunity from i a b i l i t y . H i l l
v . StubHub, n c . , 727 S.E.2d 550, 558 N.C. A p p . 2012). Eight i r c u i t c o u r t s have
found o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s exem p t f rom l i a b i l i t y under S e c t i o n 230 n a l l but
t w o cases d i s c u s s e d below). The S i x t h C i r c u i t has t a t e d t h a t S e c t i o n 230 r o t e c t s
websites from i a b i l i t y f o r u s e r c o n t e n t , Seaton v . T r i p A d v i s o r , LLC 28 F.3d 592,
599 6th C i r . 2013), but has not e t a p p l i e d t h e law, ee Doe . SexSearch.com,551
F.3d 412, 15 6th C i r . 2008) d e c l i n i n g t o reach h e q u e s t i o n of hether the
[CDA] r o v i d e s [defendant] wi th immunity from s u i t ) . H o w e v e r , i s t r i c t c o u r t s
in h i s C i r c u i t have recognized h e [ n ] e a r -unanimous case l a w n f o r c i n g S e c t i o n
230 immunity o r o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a g a i n s t s u i t s seeking o hold t h em i a b l e
f o r t h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t . E cker t . Microsoft Copp., 2007W 96692, t *3 E.D.
5 Moreover, e c t i o n 230 r e a t e s an immunity rom u i t r a t h e r than a m er e defense
to i a b i l i t y and t i s e f f e c t i v e l y l o s t i f a case s e r r o n e o u s l y p e r m i t t e d t o g o o t r i a l .
N e m e t h e v r o l e t , 591 F.3d a t 254 i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ; emphasis n
o r i g i n a l ) ; Roommate s.c om, 521 F.3d a t 1 175 Section 230 mu s t be n t e r p r e t e d t o
p r o t e c t w e b s i t e s not merely from u l t i m a t e l i a b i l i t y , but from having to f i g h t c o s t l y
and p r o t r a c t e d l e g a l b a t t l e s . ) . Thus, o u r t s should apply S e c t i o n 230 at h e
e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e s t a g e of h e c a s e . . . . N e m e t h e v ~ ^ o l e t , 591 F.3d a t 255.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 16
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 57/139
Mich. Feb. 13, 007); ee also Energy Automation y s . , Inc. . Xcent~ic V e n t u r e s ,
LLC, 007WL 557202, t * 2 n.6(M.D. enn.May 5, 007).
C. The i s t r i c t Court Mischaracterized Prior Cases to Interpret Section
230 mmunityMore estrictively Than Any ther Court.
The i s t r i c t court departed s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h i s c l e a r precedent,finding
i n s t e a d t h a t the defendants did not have immunity under Section 230 o r a l l e g e d l y
defamatory user posts becaus e they helped develop o n t e n t . 6 I n so finding, he
court appl[ied] a standard for eva lua ting development h a t [ i s ] broader than a ny
c i r c u i t court has ever recognized. 3 -C o l v I l V i E R C B &INTERNETLAw
3 .05 3]D]i i ] Jones . . l i k e l y would have been decided d i f f e r e n t l y by other
c o u r t s . . . . )
The i s t r i c t court s s e r t e d t h a t i t s r u l i n g represents the weight o f u t h o r i t y ,
2 0 1 3 WL 068780, t * , but h a t i s simply not r u e . For example, t c i t e d cases
from the Seventh and Eighth C i r c u i t s t h a t upheld Section 230 mmunity, but
focused on h e i r d i c t a . More i g n i f i c a n t l y , the court misconstrued a sta tement in
6 The ourt declined to apply Section 230 mmunity four times. See Jones . Dirty
World Entertainment ecordings, . L . C . , 7 6 6 F. Supp. d 828,836 E.D.Ky.
2011) denying motion o d i s m i s s ) ; 840 F. upp. d 1 008 2012) denying motion
f o r summary udgment); Case No. :09- c v -00219-WOB-CJS, kt. 188 Apr. 18,
2013) denying second summary udgment o t i o n ) ; and 2013 WL 068780 Aug.
12, 013) post t r i a l supplemental o p i n i o n denying e f e n d a n t s ' motion o r
judgment as a a t t e r o f aw under Fed. . Civ.P. 0 ) .
e e , e . g . , 2013 WL 068780, t * ( d i s c u s s i n g Chicago Lawyers'Comm. og
C i v i l R i g h t s Under Law, 1 9 F.3d 666, 71 7th C i r . 2008), n which h e Seventh
E
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 17
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 58/139
the Tenth C i r c u i t ' s opinion in Federal Trade Commission v . Accusea~ch,570 F.3d
1187, 1199 10th C i r . 2009), h a t to be ` r e s p o n s i b l e ' for the development o f
o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t , o n e must be m o r e than a n e u t r a l conduit f o r t h a t c o n t e n t . T h e
d i s t r i c t court read i n t o t h i s quote a r~equi~ement h a t an o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' s
conduct be neutral to r e t a i n Section 230 immunity, t a t i n g t h a t a provider can
a v a i l i t s e l f o f Section 2 30 only if i t s ] conduct was n e u t r a l with respect to the
o f f e n s i v e n e s s o f h e c o n t e n t . 2013 W 068780, t 2 emphasis added) quoting
Accusea~ch,570 F.3d a t 1199).
Until now, o c o u r t has ever held t h a t a website must be a purely n e u t r a l
conduit for t h i r d - p a r t y content and l o s e s Section 230 mmunity i f t s e l e c t s ,
reviews, d i t s or f a i l s t o r e m o v e o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t . This i s p r e c i s e l y the r e s u l t
Congress sought o avoid. Secti on 230 r o t e c t s and encourages o n l i n e s e r v i c e
providers to review, d i t , and block c o n t e n t . S e e Zeran, 129 F.3d a t 330 lawsuits
seeking to hold a s e r v i c e provider l i a b l e f o r i t s e x e r c i s e o f a p u b l i s h e r ' s t r a d i t i o n a l
e d i t o r i a l functions —suc h as deciding whether t o publish, withdraw, postpone or
a l t e r content —are barred ) ; see also Ben Ezra, 206 F.3d a t 986; a t z e l , 3 3 3 F.3d a t
C i r c u i t held C r a i g s l i s t immune or a l l e g e d l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y housing ads, bu t
focusing o n the c o u r t ' s c o m m e n t h a t [n]othing in the s e r v i c e c r a i g s l i s t o f f e r s
induces anyone t o post any p a r t i c u l a r l i s t i n g or express a p r e f e r e n c e f o r
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ); d . a t 2 discussing Johnson v . Aden, 1 4 F.3d a t 792, and
acknowledging t h a t the Eighth C i r c u i t upheld . . . immunity, but focusing o n i t s
comment h a t [ t ] h e record c o n t a i n s n o evidence t h a t [the I n t e r n e t s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ]
designed i t s website to be a p o r t a l f o r defamatory c o n t e n t ) .
10
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 18
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 59/139
1031. See also 47 .S.C. § 30(c)(1) p r o h i b i t i n g treatment o f nline s e r v i c e
provider as publisher o f nformation provided b y a h i r d p a r t y ) .
To i n d o t h e r w i s e , the d i s t r i c t court e l i e d a l m o s t n t i r e l y o n m i s a p p l i c a t i o n s
o f he N in t h a n d Tenth C i r c u i t s d e c i s i o n s in R o o m m a t e s . c o m , 521 F.3d 1157, a n d
Accusea~ch,570 .3d 1187, ee 840 F. Supp. 2 d a t 1 0 1 0-11; 2 0 1 3 WI, 068780, t
- 2 , the only c i r c u i t court cases d e c l i n i n g to apply Section 2 3 0 i m m u n i t y o n the
b a s i s t h a t o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n developing unlawful c o n t e n t .
Bu t he f a c t s a n d holdings o f hese cases d o n o t support the c o u r t s conclusion.
R o o m m a t e s . c o m concerned a website designed to m a t c h p r o s p e c t i v e
r o o m m a t e s . One o r t i o n o f he s i t e r e q u i r e d u s e r s to a n s we r questions b y m a k i n g
s e l e c t i o n s f r o m d r o p- d o w n m e n u s , ncluding q u e r i e s a b o u t h e i r gender, exual
o r i e n t a t i o n , a n d whether they w o u l d bring c h i l d r e n i n t o the household.
R o o m m a t e s . c o m , 521 F.3d a t 1160. T h e s i t e a l s o r e q u i r e d u s e r s to s p e c i f y whether
they w o u l d p r e f e r t o l i v e with s o m e o n e based o n the s a m e c r i t e r i a a n d c r e a t e d
p r o f i l e pages s e a r c h a b l e b y the c r i t e r i a . I d . Two o u s i n g g r o u p s sued
R o o m m a t e s . c o m , rguing t did o n l i n e w h a t a e a l e s t a t e agent could n o t lawfully
d o n person, . e . f a c i l i t a t e the r e n t a l o f o u s i n g b a sed o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y f a c t o r s .
R o o m m a t e s . c o m argued t h a t Section 2 3 0 provided i m m u n i t y f r o m these
claims, bu t the Ninth C i r c u i t disagreed because, t found, s to c e r t a i n o f t s
f e a t u r e s , t h e s i t e w a s responsible . . . f o r the c r e a t i o n o r development o f he
11
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 19
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 60/139
a l l e g e d l y u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t . See 47 U.S.C.§ 300(3). The o u r t h e l d t h a t a
w e b s i t e h e l p s t o d e v e l o p u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t , and h u s f a l l s w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n t o
S e c t i o n 230, f t c o n t r i b u t e s m a t e r i a l l y t o t h e a l l e g e d i l l e g a l i t y o f h e c o n t e n t .
I d . a t 1 168 emphasis d d e d ) . Roommates.com d i d t h i s , t h e c o u r t found, e c a u s e i t
a u t h o r e d q u e s t i o n s d e s i g n e d t o e l i c i t d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r e f e r e n c e s and r e q u i r e d u s e r s
t o answer them. I d . a t 1166. By e q u i r i n g s u b s c r i b e r s t o p r o v i d e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n
a s a o n d i t i o n of c c e s s i n g i t s s e r v i c e , and by p r o v i d i n g a i m i t e d s e t of r e -
p o p u l a t e d a n s w e r s , t h e c o u r t w r o t e , Roommate becomes m u ch more than a
p a s s i v e t r a n s m i t t e r of n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by t h e r s ; t becomes h e d e v e l o p e r , a t
l e a s t i n p a r t , of h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . I d . (emphasis a d d e d ) .
As h e Ninth C i r c u i t emphasized, h e c r u x of t s d e c i s i o n was h e s i t e ' s
Yequirement h a t u s e r s submit l l e g e d l y u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t t o i t s s i t e . $ Courts
a p p l y i n g Roommates.com have i n t e r p r e t e d i t t h e same w ay—as c a r v [ i n g ] out n l y
a narrow e x c e p t i o n t h a t t u r n e d e n t i r e l y on h e w e b s i t e ' s d e c i s i o n t o f o r c e
s u b s c r i b e r s t o d i v u l g e p r o t e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r e f e r e n c e s a s a
See, . g . , 521 F.3d a t 1167 Roommate d e s i g n e d i t s s e a r c h s y s t e m . . . based on
t h e p r e f e r e n c e s and p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t Roommate t s e l f f o r c e s
s u b s c r i b e r s t o d i s c l o s e . ) ; i d . a t 1 170, . 2 6 i t i s Roommate h a t f o r c e s u s e r s t o
e x p r e s s a p r e f e r e n c e and Roommate h a t f o r c e s u s e r s t o d i s c l o s e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n
t h a t can form t h e b a s i s of i s c r i m i n a t i o n by t h e r s . ) ; i d . a t 1 172 Roommate does
not merely p r o v i d e a framework h a t c o u l d be u t i l i z e d f o r p r o p e r o r improper
p u r p o s e s ; r a t h e r , Roommate's work n d e v e l o p i n g t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y q u e s t i o n s ,
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y answers and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e a r c h mechanism i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o
t h e a l l e g e d i l l e g a l i t y of h e s i t e . ) .
12
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 20
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 61/139
c o n d i t i o n of s i n g i t s s e r v i c e s . Goddard . Google, n c . , 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193,
1201-02 N.D. a l . 2 0 0 9 ) ; see a l s o A t l a n t i c Recording Corp. . P r o j e c t P l a y l i s t ,
I n c . , 603 F . Supp. 2d 690, 01 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) f i n d i n g Roommates.com r e a d i l y
d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e b e c a u s e i t was based s o l e l y on h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o n t e n t on h e
w e b s i t e t h a t was i s c r i m i n a t o r y was u p p l i e d b y Roommates.com t s e l f ' ) ; oe .
MySpace, n c . , 629 F. Supp. 2d 663,665 E.D. Tex. 2009) d i s t i n g u i s h i n g
Roommates. om b e c a u s e [ t ] h e Ninth C i r c u i t r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d . . . t h a t t h e
Roommates.com w e b s i t e required t s u s e r s t o p r o v i d e c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n a s a
c o n d i t i o n of t s u s e . . . . (emphasis a d d e d ) ) .
At h e same i m e , t h e Roommates. om c o u r t emphasized h a t c o u r t s must not
r e a d t h e term develop so b r o a d l y a s t o s a p S e c t i o n 230 of t s meaning: I t ' s t r u e
t h a t t h e b r o a d e s t s e n s e of h e term ` d e v e l o p ' c o u l d i n c l u d e . . . j u s t about any
f u n c t i o n performed b y a w e b s i t e . But o r e a d t h e term so b r o a d l y would d e f e a t t h e
p u r p o s e s of e c t i o n 230 by swallowing up v e r y b i t of h e immunity h a t t h e
s e c t i o n o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e s . I d . a t 1 167.
E v e n more e l e v a n t h e r e , t h e Ninth C i r c u i t found Roommates.com was
immunerom c l a i m s stemming from a i f f e r e n t p a r t of t s w e b s i t e , a e c t i o n f o r
u s e r s t o p r o v i d e A d d i t i o n a l Comments. Roommates.com was not e s p o n s i b l e ,
i n whole o r i n p a r t , f o r t h e development of h i s c o n t e n t , b e c a u s e t h e w e b s i t e could
not review e v e r y p o s t , making t p r e c i s e l y t h e k i n d of i t u a t i o n f o r which s e c t i o n
13
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 21
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 62/139
230 was designed o provide immunity. I d . The l a i n t i f f s contended h e s i t e
e n c o u rag e d u b s c r i b e r s t o make i s c r i m i n a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e Additional
Co m m e n ts i e l d because t r e q u i r e d t h e s e l e c t i o n o f i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r e f e r e n c e s i n
t s r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e s s . I d . a t 1174. The Ninth C i r c u i t r e j e c te d t h i s argument an d
emphasized h a t t h e o r i e s o f i m p l i c i t encouragement woul d gut e c t i o n 230:
[T]here w i l l always b e l o s e c a s e s where a l e v e r lawyer could argue
t h a t something h e website o p e r a t o r d i d encouraged h e i l l e g a l i t y .
Such c l o s e c a s e s , we e l i e v e , must be e s o l v e d i n favor o f mmunity,
l e s twe
ut h e h e a r t out o f e c t i o n 230 b y o r c i n g w e b s i t e s t o f a c ed e a t h b y e n thousand d uck- b i t e s , f i g h t i n g off laims h a t they
p r o m o t e d o r encouraged — or t l e a s t t a c i t l y a s s e n t e d — o t h e i l l e g a l i t y
o f h i r d p a r t i e s . Whe r e t i s very c l e a r t h a t t h e website d i r e c t l y
p a r t i c i p a t e s i n developing h e a l l e g e d i l l e g a l i t y — as t i s c l e a r here
with e s p e c t t o Roommate's u e s t i o n s , answers and h e r e s u l t i n g
p r o f i l e pages — i mmun ity i l l b e o s t . ut n c ases o f nhan c e m e n t
b y m p l i c a t i o n o r d e v e l o p m e n t by inference —such as wit h e s p e c t t o
the Additional Co m m e n ts e r e — s e c t i o n 230 must b e n t e r p r e t e d t o
protect e b s i t e s not merely fr om u l t i m a t e l i a b i l i t y , but fr om having o
f i g h t c o s t l y and r o t r a c t e d l e g a l b a t t l e s .
I d . a t 1 174-75 emphasis added) . Contrary o the Ninth C i r c u i t ' s holding n
Roommates. o m , h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t decided h a t a e b s i t e can b e i a b l e a s a o n t e n t
developer merely because t i m p l i c i t l y encourages s e r s t o post f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t .
In A ccusea~ch, h e defendant p e r a t e d a website h a t o f f e r e d t o s e l l
i n d i v i d u a l s ' p r i v a t e telephone r e c o r d s , a l l e g e d l y i n v i o l a t i o n or unlawful
circumvention o f h e Telecommunications Act. 570 F.3d t 1 192. Accusearch
invoked S e c t i o n 230, arguing h a t t o b t a i n e d the e c o r d s fr om h i r d- p a r t y
r e s e a r c h e r s t h i r e d , but h e Tenth C i r c u i t r e j e c t e d t h i s argument. I d . a t 1191.
1 4
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 22
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 63/139
Alluding to Roommates. om, t found h a t [b]y paying t s r e s e a r c h e r s t o a c q u i r e
telephone r e c o r d s , kn ow i n g the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f he records was p r o t e c t e d b y law,
i t c o n t r i b u t e d m i g h t i l y to the unlawful conduct. I d . a t 1200. At he h e a r t o f he
c o u r t ' s decision was t s f i n d i n g t h a t [ a ] c q u i s i t i o n o f h i s information w o u l d almost
i n e v i t a b l y r e q u i r e someone to v i o l a t e the [law]. I d . a t 1192. See also H i l l , 727
S.E.2d a t 561 (reading Roommates.com and Accusea~ch to r e q u i r e t h a t an o n l i n e
provider e f f e c t i v e l y c o n t r o l the content posted b y . . t h i r d p a r t i e s or take o t h e r
a c t i o n s which e s s e n t i a l l y ensure the c r e a t i o n o f unlawful m a t e r i a l t o l o s e Section
230 immunity); Shiamili v . Real Estate G r o u p o fNew York, n c . , 17 N.Y.3d 281,
290,952 N.E.2d l ol l (N.Y. 2011) r e f u s i n g t o i n t e r p r e t Accusea~ch to c r e a t e an
exception to immu n i t y where defendants created and ran a Web i t e which
i m p l i c i t l y encouraged u s e r s to post n e g a t i v e comments ) .
The d i s t r i c t court here ignored the holding o f ccusea~ch and mistakenly
l a t c h e d o n to one t a t e m e n t : We h e r e f o r e conclude h a t a e r v i c e provider s
` r e s p o n s i b l e ' for h e development o f f f e n s i v e content only f t in some way
s p e c i f i c a l l y encourages the development o f what s o f f e n s i v e about the c o n t e n t .
840 F. Supp. 2 d a t 1011 (quoting Accusearch,570 F.3d a t 1 1 9 9 ) . The court
i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s t o mean h a t a website s be y o n d Section 230 r o t e c t i o n s i f the s i t e
i s o f f e n s i v e and encourages u s e r s t o post c o n t e n t . That s n o t h a t Accusea~ch
15
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 23
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 64/139
h e l d , t i s not what S e c t i o n 230 t a t e s , and n o c o u r t has e v e r a d o p t e d such a
sweeping e x c e p t i o n t o S e c t i o n 230 immunity.
D The D i s t r i c t Court's I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Threatens t o S t r i p Online S e r v i c e
Providers o f e c t i o n 230 Im m u n i t y Based o n Common n d Laudable
P r a c t i c e s .
I n i t s o p i n i o n s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p o i n t e d t o s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t h a t p u r p o r t e d l y
e s t a b l i s h e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s encouraged f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t and t h u s were n o t
e n t i t l e d t o S e c t i o n 230 immunity. In t s o r d e r denying d e f e n d a n t s ' motion f o r
judgment s a m a t t e r o f aw, t summarized:
T h i s Court h o l d s by r e a s o n o f h e v e r y n a m e o f h e s i t e t h e ma n n e r n
which t i s managed, and t h e p e r s o n a l c o m m e n t s o f e f e n d a n t R i t c h i e ,
t h e d e f e n d a n t s have s p e c i f i c a l l y encouraged development o f what s
o f f e n s i v e about h e c o n t e n t o f h e s i t e .
840 F. Supp. 2d a t 1012. T h i s i l l - d e f i n e d encouragement e s t i s based o n a c t o r s
t h a t c a n n o t d e f e a t S e c t i o n 230 immunity and would undermine t s v e r y p u r p o s e .
1 . Exercising T r a d i t i o n a l E d i t o r i a l Functions.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded t h a t d e f e n d a n t s a r e c o n t e n t p r o v i d e r s b a s e d o n
t h e man ne r n which t h e w e b s i t e ] was managed, x p l a i n i n g :
R i t c h i e a c t s a s e d i t o r o f h e s i t e and s e l e c t s a m a l l p e r c e n t a g e o f
s u b m i s s i o n s t o be p o s t e d . He dds a t a g l i n e . . . . He e v i e w s t h e
p o s t i n g s but does n o t v e r i f y t h e i r a c c u r a c y . . . . I f s o m e o n e o b j e c t s t o
a p o s t i n g , he d e c i d e s i f t s h o u l d be removed.
840 F. Supp. 2d a t 1012.
But, s d i s c u s s e d above, Con gress e x p r e s s l y i n t e n d e d S e c t i o n 230 o
p r e s e r v e and promote o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s ' r i g h t s t o e x e r c i s e t h e s e t r a d i t i o n a l
1 6
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 24
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 65/139
e d i t o r i a l f u n c t i o n s . See supra S e c t i o n IV.C. In s e l e c t i n g , reviewing, d i t i n g , an d
deciding whether o i n c l u d e c o n t e n t , w e b s i t e s a c t a s p u b l i s h e r s and x p r e s s l y have
immunity under S e c t i o n 230 w h e n doing s o . S e c t i o n 230, by t s terms, r e c l u d e s
t r e a t i n g o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s as a publisher or speaker o f h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t .
47 .S.C. § 30(c)(1) emphasis added); see Ze~an, 129 F.3d a t 330.
2 . Failing o Remove llegedly Unlaw ful Content f t e r N o t i c e .
The i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o r e p e a t e d l y noted h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f complain ed about
p o s t s but e f e n d a n t s did not remove them. See 840 F. Supp. 2d t 1009 After
i n i t i a l l y r e c e i v i n g a response s t a t i n g t h a t t h e web s i t e w o u ld remove h e p o s t ,
p l a i n t i f f w a s o l d t h a t the post w o u ld not be remov ed. ) , i d . a t 1010 A g a i n
p l a i n t i f f emailed h e w eb s i t e r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e p o s t s be removed, but her e q u e s t s
were g n o r e d . ) ; see l s o 766 F. Supp. 2d t 830- 3 1 .
To h e e x t e n t the d i s t r i c t c o u r t viewed h e f a i l u r e t o remove p o s t s a s a a s i s
f o r denying S e c t i o n 230 mmunity, t again e r r e d . As h e F i r s t C i r c u i t s t a t e d , [ i ] t
i s , by n o w , ell s t a b l i s h e d t h a t n o t i c e o f h e unlawful a t u r e o f he information
provided s not enough o m a ke t t h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' s own peech. Lycos, 478
F.3d a t 420; ee l s o Ze~an ,l 29 F.3d a t 333; M.A. . V i l l a g e Voice Media
Holdings, LLC 09 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1051 E.D. Mo. 011), [E]ven f a e r v i c e
p r o v i d e r k n o w s h a t t h i r d p a r t i e s a r e p o s t i n g i l l e g a l c o n t e n t , h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' s
f a i l u r e t o i n t e r v e n e i s immunized. i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ) .
i ~ J
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 25
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 66/139
N o t i c e - b a s e d l i a b i l i t y a l s o r u n s d i r e c t l y c o u n t e r t o t h e p u r p o s e s of e c t i o n
230. I f h e law r e q u i r e s p r o v i d e r s e i t h e r t o remove u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t o r r i s k
l i a b i l i t y , n o t i c e of o t e n t i a l l y u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t would r e q u i r e a e g a l judgment . .
and an on-t h e - s p o t e d i t o r i a l d e c i s i o n whether o r i s k l i a b i l i t y by a l l o w i n g t h e
c o n t i n u e d p u b l i c a t i o n of h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , g i v i n g p r o v i d e r s a n a t u r a l i n c e n t i v e
simply t o remove messages upon n o t i f i c a t i o n , whether h e c o n t e n t s were
[ u n l a w f u l ] o r n o t . Zeran, 129 F.3d a t 3 3 3 . 9
3 . F ocu s on EntiYe Website Rather than S p e c i f i c C o n t e n t .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o c o n s i s t e n t l y f o c u s e d on t s view t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s
c r e a t e d , d e v e l o p e d , o r m a t e r i a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d t o d e v e l o p i n g t h e c o n t e n t of
TheDirty.com w e b s i t e a s a whole, a t h e r t h a n t h e s p e c i f i c p o s t s t h e p l a i n t i f f
c h a l l e n g e d . See, . g . , 840 F. Supp. 2 d a t 1011 The p r i n c i p a l c o n t e n t of t h e
d i r t y . c o m ' web i t e i s not o n l y o f f e n s i v e but o r t i o u s . ) ; d . a t 1012 [T]he
d e f e n d a n t s . . . ` s p e c i f i c a l l y encourage development of what s o f f e n s i v e about h e
c o n t e n t ' of t h e d i r t y . c o m ' web i t e . ) ; 2013 W 068780, t *3 [ D ] e f e n d a n t s
h e r e r e c e i v e d p o s t i n g s on h e i r w e b s i t e which would be a c t i o n a b l e even by a u b l i c
f i g u r e , . e . , t h a t t h e y were knowingly a l s e o r i n r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e t r u t h .
) .
n t h i s r e g a r d , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n s put n l i n e p r o v i d e r s i n a Catch 22. I f a
p r o v i d e r reviews and b l o c k s u s e r c o n t e n t , t can be h e d e v e l o p e r of h a t c o n t e n t .
But f t f a i l s t o t a k e d o w n c o n t e n t a f t e r someone c o m p l a i n s , h a t t o o makes t a
developer u t s i d e S e c t i o n 2 3 0 r o t e c t i o n s .
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 26
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 67/139
This approach c o n t r a d i c t s e s t a b l i s h e d law holding t h a t o n l i n e s e r v i c e
p r o v i d e r s can be l i a b l e only f o r d i r e c t l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c r e a t i n g , r e q u i r i n g , o r
developing the p e c i f i c content that s unlawful. For example, n S . C. v . Dirty
World, LLC, 012WL 335284(W.D.Mo. a r . 12,2012), n o t h e r f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t
c o u r t dismissed defamation claims a g a i n s t TheDirty.com under S e c t i o n 230,
d i s t a n c e [ d ] i t s e l f ' f rom t h e Jones c o u r t ' s narrow i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o fCD
immunity, a n d h e l d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f could not h a l l e n g e t h e w e b s i t e as a whole
because the CD ocuses o n h e s p e c i f i c post a t i s s u e . I d . a t *4. I t found: As
m a t t e r o f law, a n d even i f r u e , merely encouraging defamatory p o s t s i s not
s u f f i c i e n t t o d e f e a t CDA mmunity . I d . ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . See a l s o Whitney
I n f o . Network v . X c e n t r ~ i c V e n t u r e s , LLC, 008 WL 50095, t * 2(M.D. l a . Feb.
15,2008) T h e i s s u e . . . i s whether Defendants a r e r e s p o n s i b l e , i n whole or i n
p a r t , f o r t h e c r e a t i o n or development o f he a r t i c u l a r postings e l a t i n g t o
[ P l a i n t i f f ) t h a t a r e t h e s u b j e c t o f h i s l a w s u i t . (emphasis a d d e d ) ) ; Ca~afano, 339
F.3d a t 1125 noting t h e key i s s u e i s whether t h e o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r c r e a t e d
or developed the p a r t i c u l a r i n f o r m a t i o n a t i s s u e ) ; Gentry Ebay, n c . , 99 a l .
A p p . 4th 816,833, . l 1 , 121 C a l . R p t r . 2d 703 2002) T h e c r i t i c a l i s s u e i s
whether eBay a c t e d as an i n f o r m a t i o n content p r o v i d e r with r e s p e c t to t h e
information t h a t a p p e l l a n t s claim i s f a l s e o r m i s l e a d i n g . )
[ L ~
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 27
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 68/139
Likewise, n H i l l v . Stubhub, 727 S.E.2d a t 550, a r i a l c o u r t held t h a t t h e
t i c k e t exchange website Stubhub was not e n t i t l e d t o S e c t i o n 230 immunity because
t found t h e w e b s i t e as a w h o l e promoted t i c k e t s c a l p i n g . But h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t
r e v e r s e d , concluding t h a t t h e ` e n t i r e w e b s i t e ' approach w a s a t a l l y flawed.
Indeed, both c a s e s the d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r i n c i p a l l y r e l i e d u p on — Roommates. o m and
Accusearch —make l a i n t h a t o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s l o s e S e c t i o n 230 r o t e c t i o n s
only i f they d i r e c t l y c r e a t e or develop t h e s p e c i f i c content a l l e g e d t o b e unlawful.
See Roommates .com, 521 F.3d a t 1174 immunity i s l o s t w h er e the website
d i r e c t l y pa r t i c i p a t e s i n developing t h e a l l e g e d i l l e g a l i t y ) ; Accusea~ch, 570 F.3d a t
1 199 provider i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r u s e r c o n t e n t only i f t . . . s p e c i f i c a l l y encourages
t h e dev el opment o f what s o f f e n s i v e about h e c o n t e n t )
In t h i s c a s e , as t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t noted, h e p l a i n t i f f u l t i m a t e l y d e c l i n e d t o
pursue [ t h e ] t a g l i n e [added b y defendant R i t c h i e , s t a t i n g Why r e a l l high school
t e a c h e r s f r e a k s i n the sack? ] as an independently a c t i o n a b l e s t a t e m e n t . . . . 2013
W 068780, t *4. Rathe r th an focus o n whether h e content R i t c h i e a d m i t t e d l y
c r e a t e d was defamatory (o r p r o t e c t e d opinion or h e t o r i c ) , t h e c o u r t mistakenly
analyzed whether d e f e n d a n t s ' website a s a w h o l e w a s o f f e n s i v e .
This e n t i r e l y s u b j e c t i v e approach no t only c o n t r a d i c t s t h e law, t puts a l l
o n l i n e p r o v i d e r s a t r i s k f o r allowing or encouraging p r o v o c a t i v e , c o n t r o v e r s i a l , or
n e g a t i v e c o n t e n t , s u b j e c t t o the v a g a r i e s o f hether a u dge or jury w i l l d e e m t h e
20
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 28
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 69/139
s i t e o r some of t s c o n t e n t o f f e n s i v e . Yet, s t h e long h i s t o r y of h e F i r s t
Amendment e a c h e s , speech cannot be e s t r i c t e d simply because t i s u p s e t t i n g or
a r o u s e s contempt. Snyder . P h e l p s , 131 S. t . 1207, 1219, 179 L. d. d 17 2
(2011). Quite h e o p p o s i t e , i m p o r t a n t p r i n c i p l e s a r e born from speech h a t some
may o n s i d e r shabby, f f e n s i v e , o r even g l y . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Playboy n t .
Group, n c . , 529 U.S. 803, 2 6 2000).
4 . W e b s i t e Name.
The i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded h a t t h e name of h e s i t e i n and of t s e l f
[TheDirty.com] encourages h e p o s t i n g only of d i r t , t h a t i s m a t e r i a l which s
p o t e n t i a l l y defamatory o r a n n v a s i o n of h e s u b j e c t ' s p r i v a c y . 840 F. upp. d a t
1012; see l s o 2013 W 068780, t *3 t h e evidence c o n c l u s i v e l y d e m o n s t r a t e s
t h a t t h e s e p o s t i n g s and o t h e r s l i k e them w e r e i n v i t e d and encouraged by h e
d e f e n d a n t s b y s i n g t h e name D i r t y . c o m ' ) . But o u r t s have r e p e a t e d l y r e j e c t e d
c l a i m s a g a i n s t w e b s i t e s whose na mes might l l e g e d l y i n v i t e n e g a t i v e c o n t e n t , such
a s PissedConsumer.com, ipoffReport.com, Badbusinessbureau.com, nd even
TheDirty.com.
In S.C. . D u t y W o r l d , LLC , 0 1 2 W 335284, h e c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h i ssame
argument with r e s p e c t t o TheDirty.com because t h e CD o c u s e s on h e s p e c i f i c
c o n t e n t a t i s s u e and not h e name of e b s i t e . I d . See l s o A s c e n t i v e , LLC .
Opinion C o p p . , 842 F. Supp. d 450, 7 5-76 E.D.N.Y. 0 1 1 )
21
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 29
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 70/139
(PissedConsumer.com was not i a b l e f o r u s e r review, even though t i n v i t e d o t h e r s
t o submit and prominently d i s p l a y e d n e g a t i v e reviews, which s not n l i k e t h e
t a r g e t e d s o l i c i t a t i o n of d i t o r i a l m a t e r i a l engaged i n b y a narrow genre of
p u b l i s h e r s ) ; W quityLLC . X c e n t r i c V e n t u r e s LLC 009WL 2173 N.D.
Tex. a n . 9, 2009) g r a n t i n g s u m mar y judgment o r i p o f f r e p o r t . c o m an d
badbusinessbureau.com f o r claims premised on u s e r reviews, even though s i t e s
r e q u i r e d u s e r s t o s e l e c t category f o r p o s t s , i n c l u d i n g one f o r corrupt companies ) ;
Global o y a l t i e s , L t d . v . Xcent~ic V e n t u r e s , LLC 44 F. Supp. 2d 929 D. r i z .
2008) same f o r r i p o f f r e p o r t . c o m ) ; Whitney nformation Network, n c . , 2008 WL
450095 same).
5 . Inconsistency w i t h CommonLaw efamation.
T he d i s t r i c t c o u r t opined t h a t p e r m i t t i n g defendants o invoke S e c t i o n 230
immunity would allow t t o be used t o s u b v e r t t h e law of efamation which has
e x i s t e d a t common aw f o r c e n t u r i e s , a s well a s t h e laws p r o t e c t i n g t h e r i g h t of
p r i v a c y . . . . 2013WL 068780, t *3. The c o u r t c l e a r l y was n f l u e n c e d b y
common aw p r i n c i p l e s t h a t make t l i b e l o u s t o impute u n c h a s t i t y t o a woman, or
s t a t e t h a t a woman s sexually promiscuous. 840 F. Supp. 2d a t 1011.
But Congress n t e n t i o n a l l y abrogated t h e common aw i n S e c t i o n 230. At
common aw, u b l i s h e r s could be held i a b l e f o r r e p u b l i c a t i o n of defamatory
s t a t e m e n t s , whether or not they knew they were defamatory. Congress recognized
22
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 30
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 71/139
t h i s r u l e was unworkable o r t h e v a s t amounts of s e r c o n t e n t on h e I n t e r n e t and
would d e s t r o y t h e r o b u s t flow of nformation and n n o v a t i o n o n l i n e . I t made a
p o l i c y choice to provide immunity o r e n t i t i e s t h a t host h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t , and t
i s not o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , h i s Court, or any t h e r c o u r t t o s u b s t i t u t e a i f f e r e n t
c h o i c e . See Doe . MySpace, n c . , 528 F.3d a t 419; Ca~afano, 3 9 F.3d a t 1 123.
See also supra S e c t i o n IV.A.
6 . I m p l i c i t l y Adopting Thud-Party Content.
F i n a l l y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded h a t d e f e n d a n t s were not n t i t l e d to
Section 230 mmunity bec ause they r a t i f i e d and adopted the c o n t e n t t h e p l a i n t i f f
c h a l l e n g e d . 2013 W 068780, t *4 [T]he a l i e n t p o i n t about i t c h i e ' s t a g l i n e
i s not h a t t was defamatory t s e l f and thus o u t s i d e CDA mmunity, ut a t h e r t h a t
t e f f e c t i v e l y r a t i f i e d and adopted h e t h i r d - p a r t y p o s t . ) ; see a l s o 840 F. Supp. 2d
a t 1012 a s s e r t i n g t h a t a ury could c e r t a i n l y i n t e r p r e t R i t c h i e ' s t a g l i n e , Why r e
a l l high school e a c h e r s f r e a k s i n t h e sack? as adopting the preceding a l l e g e d l y
defamatory comments concerning p l a i n t i f f ' s ] s e x u a l a c t i v i t y ) .
T h e i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o p r e c l u d e S e c t i o n 230 mmunity based on t s
views h a t d e f e n d a n t s i m p l i c i t l y adopted] an f f e n s i v e posting and thereby
e f f e c t i v e l y r a t i f i e d and adopted h e p o s t , 2013 W 068780, t *2 emphasis
added), dangerously e s t r i c t s t h e scope and a v a i l a b i l i t y of e c t i o n 230 immunity
and c r e a t e s an ambiguo us and unworkable t a n d a r d . Any ebsite or n l i n e
23
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 31
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 72/139
p l a t f o r m t h a t h o s t s u s e r c o n t e n t r e l a t e d to speech t h a t s omeone might f i n d
o b j e c t i o n a b l e — whether p o l i t i c a l commentary, consumer reviews, e l e b r i t y g o s s i p ,
or c o u n t l e s s o t h e r t o p i c s —would r i s k l i a b i l i t y o n t h e theory t h a t t has
enco uraged unlawful c o n t e n t . See P a r i s i v . S i n c l a i r , 774 F. Supp. 2d 310,316
(D.D.C. 2011) i t would be c o n t r a r y t o t h e purpose o f h e CDA . . to r e q u i r e a
f a c t-based a n a l y s i s o f f and w h e n a defendant ` a d o p t e d ' p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e m e n t s and
revoke immunity o n t h a t b a s i s ) . Websites allowing g i v e -and- t a k e about u s e r -
submitted views and c omments a r e [ t ] h e p r o t o t y p i c a l services] u a l i f y i n g f o r
[Section 230] t a t u t o r y immunity . . . . Accusea~ch, 570 F.3d a t 1195. And, s the
Ninth C i r c u i t held i n Roommates.com, o u r t s should r e j e c t t h e o r i e s o f development
b y i m p l i c a t i o n or . . . i n f e r e n c e , or t h a t a website t a c i t l y a s s e n t e d t o c o n t e n t ,
because otherwise we u t the h e a r t out o f e c t i o n 230. 521 F.3d a t 1174.
E. The i s t r i c t Court's Unprecedented I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Section 23 0
Threatens Speech Across the Internet.
C i r c u i t c o u r t s have c a r e f u l l y d e l i n e a t e d t h e boundaries o f e c t i o n 230
immunity c o n s i s t e n t with Congress's i n t e n t , r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t in l i m i t e d
circumstances, o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s may develop a c t i o n a b l e c o n t e n t i f they
r e q u i r e u s e r s to submit t or r e t a i n t h i r d p a r t i e s t o c r e a t e i t This Court now as the
o p p o r t u n i t y to c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e , and t l i k e w i s e should i n t e r p r e t S e c t i o n 230
c o n s i s t e n t with t s aims and e s t a b l i s h e d case law.
24
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 32
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 73/139
I f h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s u n p r e c e d e n t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of e c t i o n 230 s
a c c e p t e d , t h e p r e d i c t a b i l i t y t h a t S e c t i o n 230 now p r o v i d e s w i l l be o s t .
p r o v i d e r w i l l know whether someone might u b j e c t i v e l y d e t e r m i n e i t s s e r v i c e i s
o f f e n s i v e o r i m p l i c i t l y "encourages" f f e n s i v e u s e r c o n t e n t . The e f f e c t s of uch
u n c e r t a i n l y would be a r-r a n g i n g , a s u s e r c o n t e n t i s a e n t r a l f e a t u r e of o u n t l e s s
o n l i n e s e r v i c e s , n c l u d i n g ones o p e r a t e d by Amici. O n l i n e p r o v i d e r s r e l y on h e
p r o t e c t i o n s of e c t i o n 230 o manage h e i r s e r v i c e s and p r o v i d e v i b r a n t forums o r
s p e e c h and commerce. Th e i s k s of h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s a r e p e r h a p s a s
v a r i e d a s t h e b r e a d t h of h i r d c o n t e n t t s e l f but Amici f f e r some examples.
F i r s t , i f o n l i n e p r o v i d e r s a r e s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r "encouraging" o n t e n t b y
e x e r c i s i n g e d i t o r i a l d i s c r e t i o n and d e c i d i n g t o d e l e t e some p o s t s b u t not t h e r s ,
every p r o v i d e r t h a t r e v i e w s and e d i t s u s e r c o n t e n t i s a t r i s k of o s i n g immunity.
B u t e b s i t e s a c r o s s t h e I n t e r n e t do u s t t h a t . For example, h e review w e b s i t e
yelp.com o p e r a t e d by Amicus Yelp I n c . ) has e c e i v e d more h a n 47 i l l i o n
reviews about o c a l b u s i n e s s e s , government e r v i c e s , and o t h e r e s t a b l i s h m e n t s
from t s u s e r s , and u s e s automated o f t w a r e t o d e c i d e which of h e s e reviews o
r ecommend o t h e p u b l i c i n an e f f o r t t o weed o u t r e v i e w s t h a t m a y b e a k e , o v e r l y
o f f e n s i v e , o r o t h e r w i s e u n h e l p f u l . See e v i t t v . Yelp n c . , 2011 W 079526
(N.D. a l . O c t . 26,2011) f i n d i n g Yelp immune o r t h e s e a c t s b e c a u s e e x p o s u r e t o
l i a b i l i t y c o u l d c a u s e i t t o r e s i s t f i l t e r i n g out a l s e/ u n r e l i a b l e r e v i e w s . . . o r t o
25
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 33
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 74/139
immediately remove l l n e g a t i v e reviews about which b u s i n e s s e s complained ) .
A m i c u s T r i p A d v i s o r LLC i s p l a y s m i l l i o n s of s e r c o m m e n t s a b o u t h o t e l s a nd
t r a v e l s e r v i c e s , a n d Amicus Am azon.com p r o v i d e s m i l l i o n s of customer reviews
about books an d o t h e r p r o d u c t s . These s i t e s l i k e c o u n t l e s s o t h e r s , r e s e r v e r i g h t s t o
remove, c r e e n , a n d e d i t u s e r- g e n e r a t e d c o n t e n t , a nd t o e x e r c i s e t h e e d i t o r i a l
d i s c r e t i o n t o remove s o m e p o s t s w h i l e a l l o w i n g o t h e r s t o remain p o s t e d . U n d e r
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , such e f f o r t s c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o l i a b i l i t y r a t h e r
t h a n p r o t e c t a g a i n s t t . I f h i s i s t h e r u l e , o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a r e b e t t e r o f f not
r e v i e w i n g , e d i t i n g , o r b l o c k i n g c o n t e n t — a e s u l t t h a t woul d b e e x a c t l y c o n t r a r y t o
S e c t i o n 2 3 0 ' s i n t e n t t o e n c o u r a g e s e l f- p o l i c i n g .
A d di t i o n a l l y , i f w e b s i t e s l o s e S e c t i o n 230 i m m u ni t y b a s e d on a d e c i s i o n t h a t
e i t h e r t h e s i t e o r s o m e of t s c o n t e n t i s o f f e n s i v e , o n l i n e p r o v i d e r s
u n d e r s t a n d a b l y w i l l f e a r even coming c l o s e t o t h i s l i n e . 1 0 For example, A m i c u s
Ga w k er M e d i a LLC p e r a t e s a w e b s i t e c a l l e d Def amer
(www.defame r.gawker.com), which p o s t s c o n t e n t about c e l e b r i t i e s . T h e w e b s i t e
r e d d i t . c o m p r o v i d e s i t e m s p o s t e d b y u s e r s , ranked a c c o r d i n g t o v o t e s b y o t h e r
t os h e Supre m e Court a s r e c o g n i z e d , where p a r t i c u l a r s p e e c h f a l l s c l o s e t o t h e
l i n e s e p a r a t i n g t h e l a w f u l and t h e u n l a w f u l , h e p o s s i b i l i t y of i s t a k e n f a c t f i n d i n g
— i n h e r e n t i n a l l l i t i g a t i o n —will r e a t e t h e danger t h a t t h e l e g i t i m a t e u t t e r a n c e w i l l
b e p e n a l i z e d , f o r [ t ] h e m a n w h o k n o w s h a t he m u s t r i n g f o r t h proof a nd
p e r s u a d e a n o t h e r of h e l a w f u l n e s s of i s conduct e c e s s a r i l y m u s t t e e r f a r wider
of h e u n l a w f u l z o n e . S p e i s e r v . R a n d a l l , 357 U.S. 513,526 1 9 5 8 ) .
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 34
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 75/139
u s e r s and o r g a n i z e d by v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s , i n c l u d i n g f o r i t e m s t h a t a r e
c o n t r o v e r s i a l . And a g a i n , many w e b s i t e s d i s p l a y r e v i e w s of u s i n e s s e s o r
p r o f e s s i o n a l s , i n c l u d i n g Amici Amazon.com, r i p A d v i s o r , Awo nd Yelp.
Anytime o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s i n v i t e i n p u t t h a t mayb e o n t r o v e r s i a l o r c r i t i c a l
someone may o n s i d e r something o f f e n s i v e . But r o v i d e r s a r e p r o t e c t e d by
S e c t i o n 230 and h e y s h o u l d b e , b e c a u s e open and r e e speech on h e I n t e r n e t i s
what Congress meant o f o s t e r .
I f w e b s i t e s a r e s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r f a i l i n g t o remove h i r d- p a r t y c o n t e n t
whenever someone o b j e c t s , t h e y w i l l be s u b j e c t t o t h e h e c k l e r ' s v e t o , g i v i n g
anyone w h o complains u n f e t t e r e d power o c e n s o r s p e e c h . See Reno v . Am. i v i l
L i b e r t i e s Union,521 U.S. 844, 880 1997). For example, Avvo.com h o s t s u s e r
reviews of t t o r n e y s (www.avvo.com) nd would r i s k l i a b i l i t y i f t d i d not remove
c l i e n t comments and reviews whenever a d i s g r u n t l e d a t t o r n e y d i d not i k e them.
T h e same would be r u e f o r Amazon.com i f an a u t h o r o b j e c t e d t o r e v i e w s of e r
work, r TripAdvisor.com i f a o t e l d i s l i k e d r e v i e w s from t s g u e s t s . Under h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , any w e b s i t e t h a t r e c e i v e s a o m p l a i n t about h i r d -
p a r t y c o n t e n t would have i t t l e c h o i c e but o remove t and h e c a n d i d exchange of
i n f o r m a t i o n would s u f f e r a s a e s u l t .
F i n a l l y , i f o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s adopt r r a t i f y u s e r c o n t e n t merely
by e s p o n d i n g t o p o s t s o r adding comments h a t a r e not a c t i o n a b l e , t h a t c o u l d
27
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 35
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 76/139
d i s s u a d e w e b s i t e s from i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h u s e r s a l t o g e t h e r . For example, news
w e b s i t e s t h a t s o l i c i t c i t i z e n j o u r n a l i s m about u b l i c e v e n t s , c r i m e t i p s , o r u s e r s '
e x p e r i e n c e s (such a s Amicus CNN's r e p o r t . c o m ) , o f t e n e n c o u r a g e c o n v e r s a t i o n s
between u s e r s and e d i t o r s about e v e l o p i n g news v e n t s . S i m i l a r l y , Amicus
Gawker b e l i e v e s t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n among u b m i t t e r s and e d i t o r s i s i n t e g r a l t o f i n d i n g
and p u b l i s h i n g a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n s o f f e r no l e a r
g u i d a n c e about when an o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r ' s ow n p u t h a s adopted r
r a t i f i e d a r g u a b l y o f f e n s i v e c o n t e n t , n e c e s s a r i l y c a u s i n g them t o be more e t i c e n t
about r o v i d i n g any feedback o r comments, e g a r d l e s s of h e v a l u e of o i n g s o .
I t i s not Amici's p l a c e i n t h i s c a s e t o condone o r condemn d e f e n d a n t s '
w e b s i t e o r c o n d u c t . C e r t a i n l y , an o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r m a y o s e S e c t i o n 230
immunity f t c r e a t e s o r d i r e c t l y p a r t i c i p at e s i n a u t h o r i n g u n l a w f u l c o n t e n t . Bu t
t h e l i n e s s h o u l d be c l e a r , a s o n l i n e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s a c r o s s t h e I n t e r n e t need t o
u n d e r s t a n d and r e l y on h e p r o t e c t i o n s of e c t i o n 230 h a t Congress i n t e n d e d . T h i s
Court should be c a r e f u l not o d e s t r o y t h e l a w ' s broad immunity and d e f e a t t s v e r y
p u r p o s e s b y r e a t i n g t h e o r i e s of i m p l i c i t encouragement r a d o p t i o n , a s t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o u n d .
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 36
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 77/139
Respectfully submitted t h i s 19th day of Novemb er, 2013
BRUCE .H.JOHNSON
JAMES .GRANT
AMBIKAK DOR N
Co-counsel og ami ci
DAVISWRIGHTTREMAINELLP
1241 Third Avenue, u i t e 2200
S e a t t l e Washington 98101
Tel: 206)622-3150
Fax: 206)757-7700
THOM S BURKE
Co-counsel og amid
D MSWRIGHTTREMAINELLP
505 Montgom er y S t r e e t S u i t e 800
San Francisco, a l i f o r n i a 9 4 1 1 1
Tel: 415)276-6500
Fax: 415)276-6599
s/John C. G~eine~
JOHN .GREINER 0005551)
NICHOLAS . ZIEPFEL 0086584)
Co-counsel or ami ci
GR YDONHE D ITCHEYLLP
1900 i f t h T h i r d C e n t e r
511 Walnut S t r e e t
C i n c i n n a t i OH 5202-3157
T e l : 513)629-2731
Fax: 513)651-3836
JAMESROSENFELD
Co-counsel og amid
D MSWRIGHTTREMAINELLP
1633 Broadway,27th Floor
New ork,NY 0019
T e l : 212) 89-8230
Fax: 212)489-8340
29
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 37
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 78/139
CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE
This b r i e f complies w i t h t h e type-volu me l i m i t a t i o n o f ed. R. App. P.
29 d) 7) and 3 2 a ) 7 ) B ) i ) because t c o n t a i n s 6,849 words o f e x t a s c a l c u l a t e d b y
t h e w o r d- p r o c e s s i n g program used t o p r e p a r e i t e x c l u d i n g t h e p a r t s o f h e b r i e f
ex emp t ed b y Fed. R. A p p . P. 2 a ) 7 ) B ) i i i ) and i r . R. 2 b ) 1 ) .
This b r i e f complies w i t h t h e t y p e f a c e r e q u i r e m e n t o f ed. R. A p p . P.
3 2 a ) 5 ) and t h e t y p e - s t y l e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f ed. R. A p p . P. 2 a ) 6 ) because t has
b e e n p r e p a r e d i n a p r o p o r t i o n a l l y spaced t y p e f a c e u s i n g M i c r o s o f t W o r d 2011 i n
14- p o i n t T i m e s NewRoman o n t .
s/Jo h n C. Greiner
John C . r e i n e r 0005551)
30
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 38
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 79/139
CERTIFIC TEOFSERVICE
I hereby c e r t i f y t h a t a copy of h e foregoing was served on a l l counsel of
r e c o r d , t h i s 1 9 t h day of November, 2013, b y means of he C o u r t s e l e c t r o n i c f i l i n g
system.
s/John C. G~eine~
John C . Greiner 0005551)
31
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887614 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 39
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 80/139
__________________________________________________________________
No. 13-5946
__________________________________________________________________
United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit
DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT, et al.
Defendants-Appellants
v.
SARAH JONES
Plaintiff-Appellee
_________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky __________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
OPINION CORP. SUPPORTINGAPPELLANTS AND URGING REVERSAL
Marc J. Randazza
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP
3625 S. Town Center Drive,
Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
(702) 420-2001
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
November 19, 2013
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 1
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 81/139
6CA-18/08 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Disclosure of Corporate Affiliationsand Financial Interest
Sixth CircuitCase Number: Case Name:
Name of counsel:
Pursuant to 6th Cir. R. 26.1,Name of Party
makes the following disclosure:
1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? If Yes, list below theidentity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and the namedparty:
2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has a financial interestin the outcome? If yes, list the identity of such corporation and the nature of the financialinterest:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on _____________________________________ the foregoing document was served on allparties or their counsel of record through the CM/ECF system if they are registered users or, if they are not,by placing a true and correct copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to their address of record.
s/
This statement is filed twice: when the appeal is initially opened and later, in the principal briefs,immediately preceding the table of contents. See 6th Cir. R. 26.1 on page 2 of this form.
13-5946 Dirty World v. Jones
Marc J Randazza
Opinion Corp.
No
No
November 19, 2013
Marc J Randazza
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 2
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 82/139
i
Table of Contents
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ..................................................................1
STATEMENT OF SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE BRIEF..........................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................................................................1
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................5
I. SECTION 230 EXPRESSES A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO
PROVIDE BROAD IMMUNITY FOR WEBSITE OPERATORS............5
II. COURTS CONSTRUE SECTION 230 IMMUNITY BROADLY TO
EFFECTUATE ITS SPEECH-PROTECTIVE PURPOSE. ........................6
III. THE DISTRICT COURT’S “ENCOURAGEMENT” STANDARD
CONTRAVENES SECTION 230’S LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE. .....10
IV. NON-DEFAMATORY RESPONSES ARE NOT PART OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AND DO NOT EFFECT IMMUNITY.
....................................................................................................................12
V. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO IMMUNITY ANALOGOUS TO
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW.....13
VI. APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SECTION 230 IMMUNITY
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN
CREATING OR DEVELOPING THE DEFAMATORY POSTS. ...........14
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................15
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 3
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 83/139
ii
Table of Authorities
Cases
Almeida v. Amazon.com, 456 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2006) ...................................6, 7
Batzel v. Smith, 333 F. 3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................6
Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, (D. D.C. 1998) ..........................................6
Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed 2d 1263 (1980) ..............11
Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civ. Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d
666 (7th Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................................13
Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, LLC , 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)
……………………………………………………………………………..8, 9, 15
Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Accusearch, Inc., 570 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2009)...............9
First Am. Title Co. v. Devaugh, 480 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2007)................................11
Global Royalties, Ltd. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC , 544 F. Supp. 2d 929 (D. Az.
2008).................................................................................................................9, 10
Green v. America Online, Inc., 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003)....................................7
Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010) ...................................................6, 7
Nemet Chevorlet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2009)
............................................................................................................................7, 8
S.C. v. Dirty World, LLC , 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118297 (W.D. Mo., March 12,
2012).....................................................................................................................10
Shiamili v. Real Estate Group of N.Y., Inc., 17 N.Y. 3d 281 (2011).................12, 13
Universal Comm. Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007)..................7
Weinstein & Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F. 3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000) ...............7
Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (1997)..............................................5, 7, 10
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 4
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 84/139
iii
Statutes
47 U.S.C. § 230 ............................................................................................... passim
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 5
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 85/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 86/139
2
Section 230, which immunizes website operators and other interactive service
providers from causes of action or liability based on content originating with third
parties. The immunity provided by Section 230 is unique because, unlike other
media providers, an interactive service provider cannot be found to have published
illegal material on its website that it did not “create,” “author,” or “develop.”
In conformity with the Congressional policy reflected in Section 230, an
overwhelming majority of courts interpret Section 230 immunity to bar claims
based on any information originating with a third party and not substantially
altered by the interactive service provider. Under this near consensus rule,
immunity is not forfeited unless the interactive service provider actively
participates in the creation or development of the specific illegal content posted by
the third party. No Circuit Court has ever held that a website operator can forfeit
immunity under Section 230 by using a certain name for its site, opening a forum
on a specific subject, or posting after-the fact and non-defamatory responses.
In this case, the District Court ignored and/or misapplied this standard by
holding that Section 230 immunity is lost where a name or subject of a website
generally “encourages” defamatory material. In this regard, the District Court
decision is the furthest outlier decision on this matter, and is clearly inconsistent
with virtually all other precedent on the issue, and is completely inconsistent with
the Congressional intent enshrined in Section 230.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 7
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 87/139
3
Appellants Dirty World, LLC Hooman Karamian a/k/a Nik Richie
(“Richie”) (collectively, “Appellants”) operate a website known as “thedirty.com”
where visitors may post information on any subject. (R. 76, Order on Motion for
Summary Judgment, Page ID # 2, R. 64-2, Richie Affidavit, Page ID # 3.)
In 2009, a visitor to thedirty.com posted a message stating that Appellee, a
teacher and Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleader, had “slept with every” Bengal
player. (R. 76, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Page ID #’s 2-3.) A
second post was made on thedirty.com, which implied that Appellee had sexually
transmitted diseases. (R. 76, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Page ID
#3.)
Appellants did not create or alter the posts about Appellee, and all of the
material in the posts originated with a third party or third parties. (R. 64-2, Richie
Affidavit, Page ID # 6.) However, Richie did post a response to this post, which
stated, “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack? – nik.” (R. 76, Order
on Motion for Summary Judgment, Page ID # 3.)
Appellee sued Appellants for defamation based on the third-party posts. (R.
22, Second Amended Complaint.) Appellee initially argued that Richie’s “freaks
in the sack comment” was actionable. This comment could theoretically, result in
liability – as it was at least authored by the defendant, but this claim was
withdrawn. (R. 177, Motion for Summary Judgment, Page ID # 3, 16.)
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 8
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 88/139
4
The District Court twice denied motions by Appellants asserting Section 230
immunity, holding that immunity was forfeited because Appellants “encouraged”
and “ratified” the defamatory posts “by reason of the very name of the site, the
manner in which it is managed, and the personal comments of defendant Richie . . .
.” 1 (R. 64-1, 76, Page ID #10, 177, 210, Page ID #’s 10-11 Motions for Summary
Judgment and Orders thereon.)
The District Court’s holding contravenes the plain language of Section 230,
which forbids website operators from being treated as a “publisher or speaker” of
content originating from third parties. Congress simply did not provide an
exception for merely generally encouraging illegal (as well as legal) content.
In addition, the District Court’s “encouragement” standard transforms
Section 230 analysis into a content-based analysis of a website’s name and subject.
This approach is contrary to Section 230’s speech-protective purposes and will
chill website operators from using open forums on controversial subjects.
Similarly, the District Court’s “adoption” exception for non-defamatory responses
to third-party posts also violates Section 230. The statutory language simply does
not allow an exception to immunity for after-the-fact responses that cannot
logically be considered part of an already completed post by a third party.
1 The two motions were different because the first motion was filed prior to
Appellee withdrawing any claim based on Richie’s “freaks in the sack” comment.
(R. 177, 210 at Page ID # 11, Orders on Motion for Summary Judgment.)
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 9
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 89/139
5
The District Court’s reliance on Seventh Circuit dicta analogizing
contributory copyright infringement to “encouraging defamation” is also
misplaced. Unlike defamation claims, copyright claims are exempt from Section
230 and protect affirmative rights. By contrast, Section 230 is a statutory
immunity that encourages the broadest possible prohibition on claims.
Because the District Court misapplied Section 230, its Orders denying
Summary Judgment should be reversed.
ARGUMENT
I. SECTION 230 EXPRESSES A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO
PROVIDE BROAD IMMUNITY FOR WEBSITE OPERATORS.
In enacting Section 230, Congress expressed a clear intent to protect the free
flow of information on the internet by “preserv[ing] the vibrant and competitive
free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(3).
Section 230 achieves this goal by carving out a sphere of immunity from suit for
providers of interactive computer services in connection with content on their
websites created by others. Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (1997).
Specifically, 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1) provides:
No provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by another information content
provider.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 10
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 90/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 91/139
7
for information originating with a third party user of the service.” See e.g.,
Almeida v. Amazon.com, 456 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006) (Section 230
immunity applied to right to publicity claim); see also Zeran, supra, 129 F. 3d at
329, 334, 335 (immunity applied to third party defamatory material); Ben Ezra,
Weinstein & Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F. 3d 980, 984-985 (10th Cir. 2000)
(immunity applied where information originated with a third party); Green v.
America Online, Inc., 318 F.3d 465, 468, 471 (3d Cir. 2003) (immunity applied
where provider declined to take action against alleged hacker); Universal Comm.
Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413, 420 (1st Cir. 2007) (immunity applied to
website that allegedly made it easier to post allegedly illegal material); Johnson v.
Arden, supra, 614 F.3d at 792 (immunity applied to third party defamatory
statements). The courts’ broad interpretation of Section 230 immunity is
consistent with Congress’ recognition of the chilling effect that “the specter of tort
liability would otherwise pose to interactive computer service providers given the
prolific nature of speech on the Internet.” Nemet Chevorlet, Ltd. v.
Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d 250, 254 (4th Cir. 2009).
Applying these principles, courts nearly uniformly hold that Section 230
immunity is applicable unless the provider is an active participant in the specific
post that is alleged to be illegal. For example, in Nemet , an automobile dealership
alleged that the website consumeraffairs.com “developed” allegedly fraudulent
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 12
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 92/139
8
posts about it by soliciting negative comments from users about businesses, then
contacting them to encourage participation in class action litigation. 591 F.3d at
256. The court held that the legal activity of soliciting participation in class action
lawsuits did not destroy Section 230 immunity because the website did not actually
contribute to the illegal nature of the posts. Id . at 258.
The court in Nemet distinguished the Ninth Circuit case of Fair Housing
Council v. Roommates.com, LLC , 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), on which the
District Court relies. In Roommates, the court held that Section 230 immunity was
lost where an internet roommate matching service actively participated in
potentially illegal posts by providing a questionnaire to participants that asked
discriminatory questions, then requiring answers as a condition of posting the
users’ classified ads. Id . at 1166. In short – the users were corralled into specific
responses, which were themselves discriminatory. This is a narrow holding, which
has logically defied expansion. Significantly, the court expressly limited its
holding to situations where the website “contributes materially to the alleged
illegality” of the third party’s post. Id . at 1168. This is because the term
“development,” as used by Section 230, refers “not merely to augmenting the
content generally, but . . . materially contributing to its alleged unlawfulness.” Id.
at 1167-68. Thus, under Roommates, a website loses Section immunity only if it
“directly participates in developing the alleged illegality . . .” and not simply by
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 13
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 93/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 94/139
10
that calling a website “Ripoff Report” encourages defamatory content, which may
be ethically wrong, but that unless Section 230 is amended, immunity must apply
where the material is “unequivocally provided by another party.” Id . at 933.
In S.C. v. Dirty World, LLC , 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118297 ** 3 (W.D.
Mo., March 12, 2012), the plaintiff sued Appellants in this case, alleging they were
liable for an alleged defamatory third-party post on the dirty.com that referred to
her as “slut.” The court held that Section 230 plainly applied because the post was
“unilaterally drafted and submitted by a third party.” Id. at **1.
III. THE DISTRICT COURT’S “ENCOURAGEMENT” STANDARD
CONTRAVENES SECTION 230’S LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE.
By expressly forbidding any service provider from being treated “as the
publisher or speaker” of any content “provided” by someone else, the statute could
not be clearer in precluding liability for information originating with a third party.
47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1); Zeran, 129 F.3d at 332. Thus, the District Court has
essentially re-written the statute by holding that immunity is lost by mere
“encouragement” of defamatory material.
The District Court’s expansion of Section 230 also conflicts with the well-
recognized canon statutory construction known as expressio unius est exclusio
alterius, which provides that “the mention of one thing” in a statute “implies the
exclusion of another.” See First Am. Title Co. v. Devaugh, 480 F.3d 438, 453 (6th
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 15
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 95/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 96/139
12
at the mercy of litigation brought by companies seeking to silence all criticism.
This is the precise result Congress sought to avoid in enacting Section 230. The
more prudent rule is the bright-line majority rule, which holds that a website
operator remains immune from liability for defamatory content posted on its
website by third parties unless it is shown that the website operator actively
participated in the “creation” or “development” of the specific defamatory post.
IV. NON-DEFAMATORY RESPONSES ARE NOT PART OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AND DO NOT EFFECT IMMUNITY.
In Shiamili v. Real Estate Group of N.Y., Inc., 17 N.Y. 3d 281, 285 (2011), a
third-party user posted a defamatory comment about the plaintiff’s business on the
defendant’s website. The defendant reposted the comments and accompanied it
with a distasteful, but non-defamatory, illustration of the plaintiff. Id . In applying
Section 230 immunity, the New York Court of Appeals reasoned that the non-
defamatory illustration did not “develop” or “materially contribute” to the alleged
illegality of the third-party content. Id . at 292-293.
The court’s holding in Shiamili is consistent with Section 230, which does
not provide an exception for after-the-fact statements that contain no defamatory
material. To the contrary, one becomes an information content provider only
through the “creation” or “development” of the defamatory content. Naturally, one
cannot “create” or “develop” a complete statement that has already been posted by
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 17
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 97/139
13
someone else. Thus, as set forth in Shiamili, after-the-fact posts by website
operators cannot be held to constitute active participation in the illegal activity.
V. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO IMMUNITY ANALOGOUS TO
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW.
The District Court’s opinion also erroneously relies upon (and attempts to
expand upon) Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civ. Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist,
Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008). In Chicago Lawyers, the court held that Section
230 precluded the plaintiffs from holding craigslist.org liable as a publisher of the
allegedly discriminatory third party housing ads. Id . at 671. In dicta, the court
noted that “information content providers” could be liable for contributory
copyright infringement if their system is designed to help people steal music or
other material in copyright. Id .
Chicago Lawyers is an outlier in terms of its narrow construction of Section
230 immunity. Further, the Seventh Circuit’s analogy to contributory copyright
infringement collapses upon an examination of Section 230’s statutory language.
Section 230(e)(2) provides that Section 230 shall not “be construed to limit or
expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.” By excluding intellectual
property claims -- whether based on direct or contributory infringement --
Congress clearly expressed a policy favoring copyright rights over Section 230
immunity. By contrast, Congress specifically provided that where a provider is not
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 18
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 98/139
14
“responsible” for the creation of the third party content “no liability may be
imposed” for claims based on state law. By the same token, there is no exclusion
for merely “contributing” to, rather than “creating” or “developing” content that
might violate state law. Thus, in defamation cases, it is irrelevant that a website
operator does not enjoy Section 230 immunity for contributory copyright
infringement because, unlike defamation, a website never enjoys Section 230
immunity from any type of liability for copyright infringement.
In addition, the Copyright Act grants affirmative rights to pursue claims to
enforce rights held by authors. Thus, it makes sense to broadly interpret the rights
of copyright holders against alleged infringers, including imposing liability for
indirect or contributory infringements. Conversely, because Section 230 provides
protection from liability by expressly excluding vicarious liability, it makes sense
to broadly interpret the protection to provide immunity unless the website operator
is directly involved in the creation or development of the illegal content.
VI. APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SECTION 230 IMMUNITY
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN CREATING
OR DEVELOPING THE DEFAMATORY POSTS.
It was critical to the District Court’s ruling below that Appellants named
their site “thedirty.com” and encourages posts on salacious topics. However, this
evidence demonstrates only that Appellants were generally encouraging the
discussion of provocative information – be it true or false. There is no evidence
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 19
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 99/139
15
that Appellants specifically requested information about Appellee, let alone that it
specifically requested false information.
It was undisputed below that Appellants did not create or edit the
defamatory posts. Appellants simply “encourag[ed] visitors to provide something
in response to a prompt” and did not “directly participate” in what is illegal about
the posts, which is that the false accusations against Appellee. See Roommates,
521 F.3d at 1174, 1175. Accordingly, Appellee failed to demonstrate that
Appellants were responsible for the “creation” or “development” of the posts.
The fact that Richie posted non-defamatory responses to the defamatory
third party statements does not alter this result. This is because what is defamatory
about the posts has already been fully “created” and “developed.” Thus, the
responses are irrelevant to Appellants Section 230 immunity.
CONCLUSION
This court should reverse the District Court because it misconstrued Section
230 in holding that Appellants were not immune from claims based on defamatory
statements created and posted by third parties on their website.
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
Marc J. RandazzaRANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP
3625 S. Town Center Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
(702) 420-2001
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
Dated: November 19, 2013
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 20
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 100/139
16
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure 29(d) and 32 (a)(7)(B) because it consists of 3,400 words,
excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5)(A) because it has been prepared in a proportionally
space typeface using Microsoft Word 2011 in 14-point Times New Roman font.
/s/ Marc J. Randazza______________
Marc J. Randazza
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP
3625 S. Town Center Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
(702) 420-2001
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
Dated: November 19, 2013
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 21
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 101/139
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887334 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 22
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 102/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 103/139
(i)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CASE NO. 13-5946
SARAH JONES APPELLANT
v.
DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENTRECORDINGS, LLCDIRTY WORLD, LLC
NIK LAMAS-RICHIE APPELLEES
DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS
AND FINANCIAL INTEREST
In accordance with 6th Cir. R. 26.1, Amici makes the following disclosures:
1. Are said parties subsidiaries or affiliates of a publicly owned corporation?
No.
2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has afinancial interest in the outcome?
No.
s/ Junis L. Baldon Date: 11/19/13Junis L. BaldonCounsel for Amicus Curiae,
American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 2
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 104/139
(ii)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................................. 3 INTERESTS OF AMICI ............................................................................................ 4 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 7
A. Section 230 Broadly Immunizes Content Providers AgainstLiability for Information Created by Others ......................................... 7
B. A Broad Application of Section 230 Immunity Is ConsistentWith Congressional Intent ..................................................................... 9
C. The District Court Erred In Refusing to Extend Section 230Immunity to Appellants ....................................................................... 13 1. The District Court Misapplied Relevant Case Law in
Determining that Appellants Developed Unlawful Material .... 14 2. The District Court’s Application of an “Encouragement
Test” Was an Error of Law ....................................................... 18 3. The District Court’s Application of a “Neutrality Test”
Was an Error of Law ................................................................. 23 4. The District Court Should Have Determined the
Applicability of Section 230 at the Earliest Possible Stage ...... 24 D. The District Court Opinion Threatens Other Online Platforms
That Make Available a Wide Range of Divergent and ValuableSpeech.................................................................................................. 25
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 29
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 3
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 105/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 106/139
(iv)
Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010) .......................................... 8, 22, 25
Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, 766 F. Supp. 2d828 (E.D. Ky. 2011) .......................................................................................3, 13
Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, 840 F. Supp.2d 1008 (E.D. Ky. 2012) .................................................................. 3, 15, 18, 19
Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC , Civil Action No. 09-219-WOB, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 4068780 (E.D.Ky. Aug. 12, 2013) ..................................................................... 4, 12, 15, 22, 23
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) ...............................................19
Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250
(4th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 8, 9, 25
Parker v. Google, Inc., 242 F. App’x 833 (3d Cir. 2007) ......................................... 9
S.C. v. Dirty World, LLC , No. 11-CV-00392-DW, 2012 WL 3335284,at *3 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2012) ........................................................................20
Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC , 728 F.3d 592 n.8 (6th Cir. 2013) .................................. 8
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., Trial IAS Part 34,1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Supr. Ct. May 24, 1995) ...................................... 10, 11
Universal Communication Systems, Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413(1st Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................8, 9
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) ........................ 8, 9, 11
STATUTES 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) .....................................................................................................17
47 U.S.C. § 230 ................................................................................................ passim
R ESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 578 (1977) ....................................................10
OTHER AUTHORITIES 141 CONG. R EC. at H8469-H8470; H8471 ..............................................................11
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 5
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 107/139
INTRODUCTION
In this case, Appellants were improperly held liable for publishing on their
website defamatory statements written by a third party. In denying Appellants’
repeat claims for immunity under federal law, the district court misapplied Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”) and
erroneously permitted this case to proceed to trial. If upheld, the district court’s
ruling would be an outlier among the federal courts and could have a profound
chilling effect on other providers of online services, threatening the broad diversity
of protected speech on the Internet.
As passed by Congress and uniformly applied by courts across the country,
Section 230 immunizes online service providers — such as broadband providers,
hosting companies, and website operators like Appellants from liability based on
material authored by users. Notwithstanding this protection, the district court
found that Appellants effectively transformed their website into one unprotected by
Section 230’s blanket immunity through a series of actions unrelated to the
creation of specific defamatory content: inviting users to submit gossipy material,
commenting in reaction to such material, and naming the website “The Dirty.”
The district court’s interpretation of Section 230 is contrary to the plain language
of the statute and at odds with virtually every court to consider its application.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 6
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 108/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 109/139
3
judgment below and to preserve the broad speech-protective immunity intended by
Congress and regularly applied nationwide.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellee Sarah Jones sued Appellants Dirty World, LLC, operator of the
website TheDirty.com, and Appellant Nik Richie, a blogger who serves as its
editor-in-chief and publisher, claiming that they published defamatory material
about her.2 The complaint made no allegation that Appellants had themselves
created or developed any actionable content.3
Accordingly, Appellants moved for
dismissal and summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to immunity
under Section 230 of the CDA. Section 230 provides immunity to website
operators and other online providers for content created by third parties unless
plaintiffs can show that the operators themselves created or developed the content
at issue. 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c); 47 U.S.C. § 230 (f)(3).
The district court denied Appellants immunity on the basis that they
“encouraged” defamatory content from third parties. Jones v. Dirty World
Entertainment Recordings, LLC, 766 F. Supp. 2d 828, 829 (E.D. Ky. 2011)
(“ Jones I ”); Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, 840 F. Supp. 2d
1008, 1012 (E.D. Ky. 2012) (“ Jones II ”). A jury ruled in favor of Jones, and
awarded her $338,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The district court
2 Second Am. Compl., RE 22, Page ID# 74-81, ¶9.3 See id .
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 8
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 110/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 111/139
5
question originates with a third party. EFF supports a broad interpretation of
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because this statute has played a
vital role in allowing millions of people to create and disseminate user-generated
content through the Internet, enriching the diversity of offerings online. EFF has
participated in a significant number of cases addressing the interpretation of this
statute.
The Center for Democracy & Technology (“CDT”) is a non-profit public
interest and Internet policy organization. CDT represents the public's interest in an
open, decentralized Internet reflecting constitutional and democratic values of free
expression, privacy, and individual liberty. CDT has litigated or otherwise
participated in a broad range of Internet free expression cases, and works to protect
the ability of websites and other service providers to offer new opportunities for
online speech unfettered by government regulation or censorship.
The Digital Media Law Project (“DMLP”) is an unincorporated association
hosted by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. The
DMLP is an academic research project that studies challenges to online journalism
and networked communication and responds with publicly accessible tools and
legal resources. The DMLP frequently appears as amicus curiae in cases where the
application of law will have a significant effect on the use of digital media to
inform the public.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 10
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 112/139
6
The Public Participation Project (“PPP”) is a national non-profit
organization dedicated to protecting citizens from lawsuits designed to chill their
ability to speak out on issues of public interest. Because many states still do not
provide sufficient protections for such speech and petitioning activities, PPP is
working to pass federal anti-SLAPP legislation. PPP also assists in efforts to pass
similar legislation in individual states, and it monitors SLAPP developments in
legislatures and courts across the country. Consistent with its support for
legislation that protects against SLAPPSs, PPP supports Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act. Defendants “SLAPPed” in retaliation for online
speech often invoke the protections of Section 230. Section 230 is essential to
ensuring that free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are upheld in
the digital age. PPP is very concerned about the precedent that this case could set
for Internet content providers that publish user generated content on their sites.
Wendy Seltzer is a Fellow with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society
at Harvard University. She founded and developed the Chilling Effects
Clearinghouse, a public resource providing a database of “cease and desist”
communications sent regarding Internet content. Adam Holland is a Project
Coordinator at the Berkman Center, and the Project Coordinator for Chilling
Effects. Chilling Effects gathers submissions from online service providers, users
of online services, and copyright holders and makes those submissions available
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 11
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 113/139
7
with annotations and categorization for review and study by scholars and interested
members of the general public through its website, www.chillingeffects.org.
ARGUMENT
The district court’s decisions in this case denying Appellants immunity are
in direct conflict with the text of Section 230 and relevant case law. Section 230
provides that no Internet provider may be held liable for content it hosts unless it is
itself “responsi ble, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [such]
information.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3). Federal courts have consistently held that
website operators may be held responsible for developing unlawful material only if
the facts demonstrate that the operator unambiguously solicited or induced content
that is itself unlawful. No such facts have been found in this case.
A. Section 230 Broadly Immunizes Content Providers Against
Liability for Information Created by Others.
Under 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c), “[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.” See also 47 U.S.C. § 230 (f)(3) (“The term
‘information content provider’ means any person or entity that is responsible, in
whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through
the Internet or any other interactive computer service.”). The statute thus
immunizes Internet providers from liability for material provided by third parties,
i.e., other “information content provider[s].” See Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC , 728
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 12
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 114/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 115/139
9
Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157, 1175 (9th Cir. 2008). Such a
waiver does not happen easily, however. “Congress . . . established a general rule
that providers of interactive computer services are liable only for speech that is
properly attributable to them.” Nemet Chevrolet , 591 F.3d at 254. The statute
“precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service
provider in a publisher’s role.” Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330. This means that “lawsuits
seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional
editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or
alter content —are barred.” Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330.
Thus, Section 230 broadly immunizes a website operator from state law
claims if the claim “would treat [the website provider] ‘as the publisher or speaker’
of that [information].” Lycos, 478 F.3d at 422; see also Parker v. Google, Inc.,
242 F. App’x 833, 838 (3d Cir. 2007); Green, 318 F.3d at 471. Because
Appellants’ role as publisher was precisely the source of liability in the judgment
below, it must be reversed as inconsistent with Section 230.
B. A Broad Application of Section 230 Immunity Is Consistent With
Congressional Intent.
A principal goal of the Communications Decency Act was to “remove
disincentives” for Internet users and providers to screen objectionable material
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 14
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 116/139
10
from their services. 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(4).5 Congress accomplished that objective
as part of a comprehensive legislative package that preserved the Internet’s
dynamic nature. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(1)-(2) (noting congressional intent “to
preserve the vibrant and competitive free market” on the Internet “unfettered by
Federal or State regulations”). Congress established powerful structural
protections to guide the Internet’s development: service providers would be
uniformly protected from suit based on user s’ behavior, and if service providers
voluntarily removed objectionable content, they could do so without fear of legal
consequences. These protections are enshrined in Section 230.
The specific impetus for Section 230 was a critical question regarding how
the Internet would develop: could service providers be held responsible as common
law “publishers” for content on their websites?6 In the mid-1990s, courts struggled
to apply traditional common law doctrines to this new technology. One federal
court took the view that common law republication liability could not be used
against a website that republished content generated entirely by a third party. See
5 As discussed more fully below, these “disincentives” were created by legal
opinions holding Internet providers liable for third-party content because they hadchosen to filter out other content. See Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services
Co., Trial IAS Part 34, 1995 WL 323710, at *4 (N.Y. Supr. Ct. May 24, 1995).6 R ESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 578 (1977) specifies the circumstances inwhich a republisher of third- party content will be liable for defamation: “[e]xcept
as to those who only deliver or transmit defamation published by a third person,one who repeats or otherwise republishes defamatory matter is subject to liabilityas if he had originally published it.”
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 15
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 117/139
11
Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135, 140-41 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
(recognizing that because websites obtain and share information instantaneously, it
is impossible for a website operator to verify the truthfulness of all republished
content). Another court found a website operator liable under the republication
doctrine for hosting a bulletin board that included an allegedly defamatory post
from a third party. Stratton Oakmont , at *4 (relying on fact that website operator
controlled third party content on the website through the use of screening and
moderators that enforced decency guidelines).
Congress enacted Section 230 to eliminate the uncertainty with which the
providers in Cubby and Stratton Oakmont grappled. The two competing opinions
were explicitly cited during congressional debates over the statute’s language,
which effectively reversed Stratton Oakmont . 141 CONG. R EC. at H8469-H8470
(statement of Rep. Cox); see also id . at H8471 (statement of Rep. Goodlatte) (“We
are talking about something that is far larger than our daily newspaper. We are
talking about something that is going to be thousands of pages of information
every day, and to have that imposition [republication liability] imposed on them is
wrong.”); Zeran, 129 F.3d at 331 (“Congress enacted § 230 to remove the
disincentives to selfregulation [sic] created by the Stratton Oakmont decision.”).
Citing a Seventh Circuit decision, the district court in this case suggested
“that [Section 230] does not provide a ‘grant of comprehensive immunity from
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 16
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 118/139
12
civil liability for content provided by a third party.’” Jones III at *1 (quoting
Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc.,
519 F.3d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 2008)). The district court’s overbroad reading of
Craigslist to determine that Appellants were categorically ineligible for Section
230 immunity was inconsistent with the clear judicial consensus regarding the
statute. While the Seventh Circuit described Section 230’s immunity provision as
a definitional clause, the Seventh Circuit’s analysis is functionally consistent with
other federal courts interpreting Section 230. Craigslist , 519 F.3d at 670
(quotation omitted). Craigslist merely reinforces what the majority of federal
courts already agree upon —that “[w]hat § 230(c)(1) says is that an online
information system must not ‘be treated as the publisher or speaker of any
information provided by’ someone else.” Id . at 671. In other words, if a cause of
action derives from treating a website operator as the “publisher” of content
provided by another, then immunity is available.
At heart, Congress sought to minimize government regulation of the Internet
by declining to apply the republication doctrine to the fast-developing Internet
world. The district court’s attempt to carve out an exception to this broad grant of
immunity based on collateral (and ultimately legally irrelevant) considerations
such as broadly inviting users to engage in disparaging (though certainly not
necessarily actionable) speech or subsequently commenting on that speech
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 17
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 119/139
13
squarely conflicts with Congress’ attempt to protect intermediaries from liability in
such disputes. The District Court’s analysis must be rejected.
C. The District Court Erred In Refusing to Extend Section 230
Immunity to Appellants.
Appellants did not author, create, or develop the defamatory content at issue
in this case; instead, they provided a platform on which others posted their own
material.7 Indeed, nothing makes that plainer than the text of Jury Instruction No.
3 from the second Jones trial: it states that Appellants “had the same duties and
liabilities for re- publishing libelous material as the author of such materials.”8 The
instruction flatly conflicts with the text of Section 230 and directed jurors toward a
finding prohibited by law. 47 U.S.C. § 230 (f)(3); see also Green, 318 F.3d at 471.
Accordingly, the jury instruction alone constitutes prejudicial and reversible error.
Hurt v. Coyne Cylinder Co., 956 F.2d 1319, 1324 (6th Cir. 1992).
Nonetheless, the district court ruled that the application of liability was
proper because Appellants were ineligible for immunity under Section 230. The
court held that although they did not create unlawful content, Appellants implicitly
developed unlawful content posted by others by encouraging a generally critical
7 The record reflects that while Richie commented on the defamatory material and
added “taglines,” he did not alter the original content and posted it as submitted,
adding his editorial comments at bottom. “[T]he exclusion of ‘publisher’ liabilitynecessarily precludes liability for exercising the usual prerogative of publishers tochoose among proffered material and to edit the material published while retainingits basic form and message.” Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003).8 Jury Instructions, No. 3, RE 207, Page ID# 3120.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 18
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 120/139
14
and ribald environment. Specifically, the court pointed to factors such as the
website’s name (TheDirty.com) and Appellant Richie’s encouragement of Internet
commenters’ negative commentary as proof that Appellants were responsible for
developing the specific defamatory content at issue in this case. The district court
was incorrect. This holding is in direct conflict with the purpose of the CDA, the
text of Section 230, and relevant case law.
1. The District Court Misapplied Relevant Case Law in
Determining that Appellants Developed Unlawful Material.
The key question before this Court is whether Appellants themselves created
or developed the defamatory content at issue, removing themselves from Section
230’s protection. 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) (defining a content provider as one
“responsible . . . for the creation or development of information.”). The district
court ruled Appellants ineligible for Section 230 immunity based on the erroneous
conclusion that they “developed” the content in question. Specifically, the court
held:
[T]hese postings and others like them were invited andencouraged by the defendants by using the name“Dirty.com” for the website and inciting the viewers of
the site to form a loose organization dubbed “the Dirty
Army,” which was urged to have “a war mentality”against anyone who dared to object to having theircharacter assassinated.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 19
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 121/139
15
Jones III , at *3; see also Jones II , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 1012-13. The district
court’s conclusion was incorrect.
Section 230 does not define the terms “responsible” or “development.” See
Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1162. In Jones II , the district court correctly cited
Roommates.com and Accusearch as seminal opinions in which federal circuit
courts have defined — and found — liability based on a website operator’s
“development” of unlawful content.9 Jones II , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 1010. Both the
Ninth and Tenth Circuits were careful to limit development-based liability to
parties that actively, knowingly, and materially participate in the unlawful aspect of
actionable content. The district court’s analysis, on the other hand, dramatically
expands possible avenues for development-based liability in a manner that poses
risks for any website that encourages critical — though not unlawful — speech.
Both appellate decisions addressed materially different conduct than that at
issue here. Roommates.com involved a website designed to “match people renting
out spare rooms with people looking for a place to live.” Roommates, 521 F.3d at
1161. Before individuals could use the website, they were required to provide
information about themselves and their housing preferences — including their sex,
9 While the Accusearch opinion separately parsed out the definition of the words“responsible” and “development,” 570 F.3d at 1198-99, this brief cites thatdecision’s final holdings in determining when a user is responsible for developing content. This brief refers to that analysis, taken as a whole, as “development-basedliability.”
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 20
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 122/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 123/139
17
Accusearch involved a similar allegation against an online provider hosting
unlawful material. The website in Accusearch sold personal data, including
confidential records protected under the Telecommunications Act, 15 U.S.C. §
45(a), to customers who paid an “administrative search fee.” Accusearch, 570
F.3d at 1191-92. The website retained researchers to find personal data, and in
turn provided that confidential information to requesting customers. Id . As in
Roommates.com, the website claimed Section 230 immunity. Id . at 1195.
Analyzing whether the website was responsible for the development of legally-
protected information, the Tenth Circuit explained that “a service provider is
‘responsible’ for the development of offensive content only if it in some way
specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content .” Id . at
1199 (emphasis added).11
The Accusearch court found that the website operator knew “that its
researchers were obtaining the information through fraud or other illegality,” id .,
and that it directly encouraged that illegality “[b]y paying its researchers to acquire
telephone records, knowing that the confidentiality of the records was protected by
law . . . .” Id . at 1200. Thus, by knowingly paying for illegal content — when that
11 The Accusearch opinion uses the word “offensive” as synonymous with
“actionable.” Cf. Accusearch, 570 F.3d 1199-1200. As there is little doubt thecontent on TheDirty.com is colloquially offensive, it is important to note that the Accusearch opinion never suggested that liability could attach to any speech thatwas distasteful but not specifically unlawful.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 22
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 124/139
18
content was the website’s “raison d’être”— the website in Accusearch specifically
“developed” the unlawful aspects of the content, preventing Section 230 immunity.
Id.
Both opinions condition the loss of Section 230 immunity on an online
service provider ’s direct and intentional participation in unlawful acts. In
Roommates.com, the website could not be used without the provision of unlawful
content. In Accusearch, the consumer product was only available due to the
website’s knowing payment for content obtained illegally. No comparable
requirements or behavior exist here. While TheDirty.com may host distasteful and
potentially actionable content, it does not require or request the submission of
unlawful material.12
While some of the material hosted on its site may be
offensive, and while some of A ppellants’ actions (such as subsequently
commenting about offensive content) may be unseemly, they are neither
independently unlawful nor sufficient to trigger the loss of Section 230 immunity.
2. The District Court’s Application of an “Encouragement
Test” Was an Error of Law.
In its opinions applying Section 230, the district court erred in two distinct
ways. In its first order, Jones II, the district court relied largely on an
“encouragement” theory of liability, 840 F.Supp. 2d at 1012-13; in Jones III , it also
12 On the contrary, the Appellants took steps to prevent it: in order to accessTheDirty.com, users must agree not to post any defamatory or otherwise unlawfulmaterial.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 23
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 125/139
19
found Appellants’ “ratification” of unlawful content made them ineligib le for
immunity. See Jones III , at *4. These analyses both constitute errors of law.
In Jones II , the district court engaged in its first significant analysis of
A ppellants’ claim for immunity. Specifically, the court held:
This Court holds by reason of the very name of the site, the manner inwhich it is managed, and the personal comments of defendant Richie,the defendants have specifically encouraged development of what isoffensive about the content of the site. One could hardly be moreencouraging of the posting of such content than by saying to one’sfans (known not coincidentally as “the Dirty Army”): “I love how theDirty Army has war mentality.”
Jones II , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 1012-1013. In so holding, the court relied on two
authorities: a law review article and a dissent. Id. at n.5. This is unsurprising, as
no other case has extended development-based liability so far.
The flaw in the Jones II logic is that no factor found dispositive by the
court — the name of the site (TheDirty.com), the manner in which it is managed
(selecting posts and reacting to users’ comments), nor the comments of Appellant
Richie ( per se non-defamatory postings and encouragement of the site’s
commenters’ “war mentality,” Jones II , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 1012-13) — is tethered
to any illegality. “Dirt” is gossip, not per se defamation. See, e.g., Milkovich v.
Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1990) (explaining constitutional limits on
defamatory content, and noting requirements of both factual falsity and fault).
Reacting to user comments is the very nature of the Internet, not to mention the
precise behavior distinguished by the Accusearch opinion as the “prototypical”
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 24
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 126/139
20
activity qualifying for Section 230 immunity.13
And Richie’s encouragement of
reactive criticism by the sites’ users (“war mentality”) reflects no inherent
illegality. Section 230 immunity cannot and does not depend on the extent to
which users exceed the scope of any specific encouragement of a service provider
and independently engage in actionable behavior themselves.
The specific factors cited by the district court do not alter the conclusion that
Section 230 immunity must apply. The website name “TheDirty.com” and
Appellant Richie’s non-defamatory musings both constitute protected speech and
provide no support for undermining their statutory immunity. See, e.g ., Global
Royalties, Ltd. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC , 544 F. Supp. 2d 929, 933 (D. Ariz.
2008) (“[T]here is no authority for the proposition that [the website title] makes the
website operator responsible, in whole or in part, for the ‘creation or development’
of every post on the site.”). Indeed, website operators routinely receive immunity
under Section 230 despite providing instructions for third party posts and
supplementing those posts with captions, titles, comments, and metadata.14
13 “The prototypical service qualifying for this statutory immunity is an onlinemessaging board (or bulletin board) on which Internet subscribers post commentsand respond to comments posted by others.” Accusearch, 570 F.3d at 1195(quotation omitted). As Section 230 covers Internet providers and users alike, thedistrict court’s analysis here could equally (and problematically) be applied to a
bulletin board commenter who reacts favorably to another’s unlawful speech.14 See, e.g., S.C. v. Dirty World, LLC , No. 11-CV-00392-DW, 2012 WL 3335284,at *3 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2012) (comments by website operator on third-party(footnote continued on following page)
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 25
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 127/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 128/139
22
Id . at 1174. The portion of the Roommates.com website that was held ineligible for
immunity did more than merely encourage unlawful content; it required users to
input unlawful content in order to access the site. Id . at 1166-67. Similarly, the
website in Accusearch developed unlawful content by knowingly paying
researchers to engage in illegal conduct. Accusearch, 570 F.3d at 1200.
The court below made no findings that Appellants required or solicited
unlawful content. The facts relied on by the district court —the website’s name and
creation of comment sections where users may post critical commentary — are the
sort of passive encouragement the Ninth Circuit explicitly anticipated and held
non-actionable in Roommates.com. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1175 (“[T]ext
prompt with no direct encouragement to perform illegal searches or to publish
illegal content” is “entirely immune from liability”); see also Accusearch, 570 F.3d
at 1195.15
The gravamen of the district court’s finding is that Appellants’ web presence
is insulting and critical. Without a specific solicitation or requirement that third
15 The District Court pointed to Arden, in which the Eighth Circuit suggested indicta that a website operator could lose immunity if it “designed its website to be a portal for defamatory material or [did] anything to induce defamatory postings.” Jones III at *2, citing 614 F.3d at 792. But nothing in Arden, which found thedefendants eligible for CDA immunity, suggested the court was deviating from thedevelopment-based liability analysis laid out in Accusearch, on which it relied, 614F.3d at 791, and which require website operators to be directly responsible for theillegal nature of actionable content to defeat immunity.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 27
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 129/139
23
parties find and submit defamatory content about Appellee, Richie and
TheDirty.com were not legally responsible for the defamatory content and cannot
qualify as information content providers. As such, the district court’s initial
Section 230 analysis is wrong as a matter of law, has no support in circuit case law,
and should be overturned by this Court.
3. The District Court’s Application of a “Neutrality Test”
Was an Error of Law.
In Jones III , the court expanded its erroneous Section 230 analysis by
finding that A ppellant Richie’s “adoption” of actionable comments prevented
Section 230 immunity. In reaching its conclusion, the district court cited a single
line from Accusearch: “That is, one is not ‘responsible’ for the development of
offensive content if one's conduct was neutral with respect to the offensiveness of
the content.” Jones III , at *2 (quoting Accusearch, 570 F.3d at 1199). The district
court relied on this statement to conclude that in “add[ing] his own comments to
the defamatory posts,” Jones III , at *2, Richie “effectively ratified and adopted the
defamatory third- party post” and was therefore not “neutral.” Id . at *4. This
separate line of the district court’s reasoning is also erroneous and must be
reversed.
In essence, the district court adopted a “neutrality” test independent of actual
development: if a website reacts to actionable material in a favorable way, it is not
“neutral,” and thus directly liable for the third par ty’s speech. The district court,
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 28
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 130/139
24
while relying on Accusearch, neglected to follow the rule enunciated just three
sentences later in the opinion: “We therefore conclude that a service provider is
‘responsible’ for the development of offensive content only if it in some way
specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content.”16
Accusearch, 570 F.3d at 1199 (emphasis added). Accusearch provides no support
for the district court’s rule that an after -the-fact reaction to an actionable post can
in any way have “specifically encouraged” the illegality of the pr ior post.
There is no support in Section 230 for a holding that reactive speech, not
itself defamatory nor instructing others to engage in actionable behavior, can
retroactively develop the comment it is reacting to. That analysis defies case law
and common sense. As with the “encouragement” analysis, the court makes its
distaste for Appellants clear. But the law requires more: a specific finding that
Appellants knowingly, specifically, and intentionally developed the defamatory
posts that third parties placed on TheDirty.com. That finding has not been made in
the court below, and the judgment should therefore be reversed.
4. The District Court Should Have Determined the
Applicability of Section 230 at the Earliest Possible Stage.
Because Section 230 provides broad, robust immunity from tort liability, the
District Court should have “aim[ed] to resolve the question of § 230 immunity at
the earliest possible stage of the case because that immunity protects websites not
16 See supra n.10.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 29
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 131/139
25
only from ‘ultimate liability,’ but also from ‘having to fight costly and protracted
legal battles.’” Nemet Chevrolet , 591 F.3d at 255.
Tellingly, the Second Amended Complaint in this case cites Appellants’
republication of content as the basis for liability, noting only that TheDirty.com
and Richie “publish[ed] an article about the Plaintiff.”17
Once again, there are no
facts suggesting Appellants created or developed defamatory content. In the
absence of such facts, Appellants enjoyed Section 230 immunity that should have
been granted at the earliest opportunity. See, e.g., DiMeo v. Max, 248 F. App’x
280, 282 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming case dismissal because plaintiff did not allege
that the website operator created or developed the posts on the website); see also
Arden, 614 F.3d at 791 (finding immunity when it was undisputed that damaging
material originated from third party); Green, 318 F.3d at 470 (same). As the
complaint cited no evidence that Appellants were information content providers
under Section 230, immediate dismissal of all claims would have been the proper
action.
D. The District Court Opinion Threatens Other Online Platforms
That Make Available a Wide Range of Divergent and Valuable
Speech.
Amici file this brief not only to reiterate the legal standard that should govern
this case but also to underscore that the district court’s opinion, if upheld, would
17 Second Am. Compl., RE 22, Page ID# 74-81, ¶9.
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 30
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 132/139
26
undermine intermediary immunity for other sites, threatening the existence of
platforms that welcome undeniably legal though critical speech.
It is crucial for this Court to distinguish between the explicit solicitation of
actionable information from users, and the general solicitation of information that
might turn out to be actionable, or simply damaging to particular individuals or
businesses. Revoking a website’s protection under Section 230 because the site
solicits “negative” content in the abstract would threaten a wide variety of specific
sites and projects that serve undeniably important public purposes by leaving them
vulnerable to precisely the kind of expensive legal challenge that followed here.
Like Appellants, the following websites: (1) solicit and encourage users to
provide truthful content damaging to businesses or individuals; (2) collect,
aggregate, and display the content submitted by their users; and (3) rely on, and
react to, this user-generated data in providing services to the public. Any legal test
that turned on these websites’ “encouragement” of disparaging content or their
“adoption” of users’ claims would eviscerate the certainty of protection they
currently enjoy under Section 230.
Chilling Effects (http://chillingeffects.org) collects cease and desist notices
relating to online speech from a wide variety of sources and compiles them in a
searchable online database. This database allows researchers to identify how such
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 31
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 133/139
27
notices are used in certain contexts and the effect of these notices on freedom of
expression online.
Fraud.org (http://fraud.org) collects thousands of consumer complaints and
actively shares them with a network of more than ninety law enforcement
organizations that have partnered with the organization. Id . This large database
allows law enforcement to identify “patterns of fraud,” an essential element of
stopping online fraud. Scam FAQs, Fraud.org, http://fraud.org /learn/faqs (last
visited Nov. 13, 2013).
Frack Check WV (http://www.frackcheckwv.net) asks West Virginians to
re port their experiences with fracking in their communities in order to “provide[]
readers with information to help influence public policy decisions” on fracking, to
describe negative “environmental impacts [that] can result from Marcellus shale
gas well dr illing,” and to “document what’s happening locally” and “organize
accordingly.” Your Report, Frack Check WV, http://www.frackcheckwv.net/your-
report/ (last visited Nov. 13, 2013).
The Brian Lehrer Show: Are You Being Gouged?
(http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2007/sep/24/are-you-being- gouged). In 2007,
The Brian Lehrer Show on NPR affiliate WNYC Radio asked listeners to report
online the cost of milk, beer, and lettuce at their local grocery stores and based on
user comments, built a map showing the most and least expensive places to
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 32
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 134/139
28
purchase the items. The show was awarded a Peabody Award for excellence in
journalism, in part because of its innovative use of citizen participation.
Clear Health Costs (http://clearhealthcosts.com) brings transparency to the
health care market in the United States using an online database providing users
with data on the cost of medical procedures at different health care providers.
Some of this data comes from users, who submit information on what they paid for
medical services. See Clear Health Costs, FAQ, http://clearhealthcosts.com/faq
(last visited Nov. 15, 2013). It would be extremely difficult to create a comparable
database of healthcare costs without relying on user contributions. See generally
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Health Care Price Transparency: Meaningful
Price Information is Difficult for Consumers to Obtain Prior to Receiving Care
(2011), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-791.
The Bed Bug Registry (http://www.bedbugregistry.com) is a public database
containing user-submitted reports of bed bugs in public spaces throughout Canada
and the United States. According to its home page, in the last several years “the
site has collected about 20,000 reports covering 12,000 locations.” As businesses
are very unlikely to volunteer information about bed bug infestations on their
property, the user-generated nature of the registry enables this public service.
All of the providers listed above rely upon third parties to contribute content
to their platforms and specifically invite them to contribute potentially damaging
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 33
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 135/139
29
content. In response to such invitations, it is possible that users may submit
information that is actionable. And in turn, websites like those above assume the
truthfulness of user-submitted content and “adopt” users’ damaging speech by, for
example, creating their own content (such as blogs or reports) relying on the
accuracy of user-submitted data, reporting user complaints to law enforcement, or
developing tools or databases incorporating user content as true. These websites,
in seeking speech that is inherently damaging about others, provide a public
service — even if some of that damaging speech should turn out to be defamatory.
The existence of this type of user-generated watchdog site is made possible
by Section 230, under which the responsibility for any actionable postings falls
squarely on the individuals who contributed them and not on the platform
providers themselves. Absent such protection, providers such as these will likely
refrain from such groundbreaking contributions that are unquestionably in the
public interest, undermining one of Congress’ explicit policy priorities. See 47
U.S.C. § 230(a)(3) (“The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a
forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural
development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”).
CONCLUSION
The district court’s refusal to dismiss this action was a clear error of law.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was passed precisely to protect
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 34
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 136/139
30
website operators from being constantly hauled into court over the speech of their
users. This Court should reverse and remand with an order of dismissal.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Junis L. BaldonJunis L. BaldonMark A. FloresBrandon W. GearhartFROST BROWN TODD LLC400 West Market Street, 32nd FloorLouisville, KY 40202(502) 589-5400
(502) 581-1087 (FAX) [email protected]@fbtlaw.com
[email protected] ACLU of Kentucky Cooperating Attorneys
William E. SharpACLU OF K ENTUCKY 315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300Louisville, KY 40202(502) 581-9746(502) 589-9687 (FAX)[email protected] Attorney for amicus curiae
ACLU of Kentucky
Lee RowlandAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES U NION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004(212) 549-2500(212) 549-2654 (FAX)[email protected] Attorney for amicus curiae ACLU
Matthew ZimmermanELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy Street
San Francisco, CA 94109(415) 436-9333(415) 436-9993 (FAX)[email protected] Attorney for amicus curiae EFF
Emma J. LlansóCENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006(202) 637-9800(202) 637-0968 (FAX)[email protected] Attorney for amicus curiae CDT
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 35
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 137/139
31
Jeffrey P. HermesAndrew F. SellarsDIGITAL MEDIA LAW PROJECT BERKMAN CENTER FOR I NTERNET &
SOCIETY Harvard University23 Eerett St., 2nd FloorCambridge, MA 02138(617) 495-7547(617) 495-7641 (FAX)[email protected]
Christopher T. BavitzCYBERLAW CLINIC BERKMAN CENTER FOR I NTERNET &
SOCIETY Harvard Law School23 Everett St., 2nd FloorCambridge, MA 02138(617) 495-7547(617) 495-7641 (FAX)[email protected]
Attorneys for amicus curiae Digital Media Law Project
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 36
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 138/139
8/13/2019 Sarah Jones v. TheDirty.com - Combined Amicus Briefs
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-thedirtycom-combined-amicus-briefs 139/139
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 19, 2013, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit through
the CM/ECF system, which will send a Notice of Electronic Filing to registered
CM/ECF participants.
s/ Junis L. BaldonJunis L. Baldon
Mark A. FloresBrandon W. GearhartFROST BROWN TODD LLC400 West Market Street, 32nd FloorLouisville, KY 40202(502) 589-5400(502) 581-1087 (FAX)
[email protected]@fbtlaw.combgearhart@fbtlaw com
Case: 13-5946 Document: 006111887703 Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 38