Section 230 Immunizes Website For Super-User’s Doxxing–Internet Brands v. Jape
9 12 2014Internet Brands runs a UGC website for boating enthusiasts. It gives some super-users the power to delete promotional posts, but “Spam deleters are not authorized to ban users, remove posts or delete discussion threads,” and they don’t get paid. Although super-users aren’t called moderators or administrators, Internet Brands’ system doesn’t let other users mute the super-users’ posts because they are classed equivalently to administrator/moderators in the system.
Alderson was a super-user/spam deleter. Jape was a regular user and posted some comments on the website under his username. For reasons that aren’t fully explained, Alderson decided to investigate Jape. Alderson then responded to Jape’s post by doxxing him–outing Jape’s real name and posting links to documents suggesting that Jape’s prior post may not have been fully forthcoming. Jape sued Alderson and Internet Brands for defamation.
The trial court denied Internet Brands’ summary judgment motions on Section 230 grounds. Apparently influenced by the bad Jones v. thedirty opinion, the trial court concluded:
Case citation: Internet Brands, Inc. v. Jape, 2014 WL 2853849 (Ga. Ct. App. June 24, 2014)
Related posts:
* Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Employer From Negligent Supervision Claim–Lansing v. Southwest Airlines
* Site Moderators Weren’t Agents of the Site–Cornelius v. BodyBuilding.com
* Troubling Ruling About 47 USC 230 and Moderators–Cornelius v. DeLuca
* Stress-Relieving Company Gets Anti-SLAPPed Per 230
The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2014/06/section-230-immunizes-website-for-super-users-doxxing-internet-brands-v-jape.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
