Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The states of Tennessee and New Jersey later passed similar legislation. Backpage argued that the laws violated Section 230, the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and the First and Fifth Amendments. [193] In all three cases the courts granted Backpage permanent injunctive relief and awarded them attorney's fees.
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), [1] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not apply to an interactive online operator whose questionnaire violated the Fair Housing Act.
It amends section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code to state that it is policy to "ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal and civil law relating to sex trafficking", and that section 230 does not impair enforcement of "any State criminal prosecution or civil enforcement action targeting conduct that violates a Federal criminal ...
Any change to Section 230 is likely to have ripple effects on online speech around the globe. “The rest of the world is cracking down on the internet even faster than the U.S.,” Goldman said.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not say Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional in a recent concurring opinion.
Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023), was a case at the Supreme Court of the United States which dealt with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which was established by section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for Internet service providers (ISPs) in dealing with terrorism ...
The Section 230 internet law is still under threat, even though the Democrats have both Houses. Big Tech will be planning how it's going to fight it
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), [2] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.