New Hampshire’s Top Court Says Section 230 Shields Retweeters From Defamation Lawsuit

from the not-just-for-billionaires dept

Part 230 isn’t just a few unearned privilege loved by tech firms to defend them from indignant, incoherent lawsuits filed by banned white nationalists. It’s additionally for the little folks, as Eric Goldman factors out whereas bringing us this current determination by the New Hampshire Supreme Court docket.

This ruling is a wonderful reminder that Part 230 doesn’t simply shield “Massive Tech”; it protects all Individuals who use the Web. Maybe the defendants would have finally defeated this case anyhow, however having Part 230 on their sides gave them–and all of us–a little bit extra freedom to have interaction one another on social media with out fearing that each informal interplay may set off a monetary cataclysm. So the following time you hear politicians claiming that Part 230 advantages solely Google and Fb, cite this case as further proof that they misunderstand what Part 230 really does, or they’re mendacity, or each.

And it’s a strong determination [PDF] that wastes little time figuring out who’s shielded from this lawsuit and why. In simply seven pages, the New Hampshire court docket covers numerous floor rapidly, finally discovering in favor of those defendants.

Right here’s the backstory: A scholar defaced a college web site and added some further details about one instructor (the plaintiff on this case). The added put up “recommend[ed] that [the plaintiff] was sexually perverted and desirous of looking for sexual liaisons with […] college students and their dad and mom.” One other scholar took a screenshot of the altered website and tweeted it. The defendants being dismissed on this ruling did nothing greater than retweet the unique tweet.

The trial court docket discovered that Part 230 of the CDA immunized these retweeters from the instructor’s lawsuit. The instructor disagreed, interesting the choice to the state’s prime court docket (which can also be its solely appeals court docket).

A second move has modified nothing. The state Supreme Court docket says the phrase “person,” present in Part 230(c)(1) means precisely that: person. These defendants have been Twitter customers and the immunity applies to them. The state’s prime court docket quotes a California Supreme Court docket case from 2006 — one of many first to use Part 230 immunity to particular person customers.

Provided that Congress declared that “‘[n]o supplier or person of an interactive pc service shall be handled as [a] writer or speaker,’” the court docket discovered no foundation “for concluding that Congress meant to deal with service suppliers and customers in a different way,” and that “the statute confers immunity on each.” Thus, the court docket concluded, “Congress employed the time period ‘person’ to refer merely to anybody utilizing an interactive pc service,” and held that part 230(c)(1) immunizes such particular person customers.

Given this background, the highest court docket finds the decrease court docket’s reasoning persuasive. Merely retweeting another person’s tweet isn’t actionable beneath Part 230.

Regardless of the plaintiff’s assertion on the contrary, we conclude that it’s evident that part 230 of the CDA abrogates the frequent legislation of defamation as utilized to particular person customers. The CDA supplies that “[n]o reason for motion could also be introduced and no legal responsibility could also be imposed beneath any State or native legislation that’s inconsistent with this part.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3). We agree with the trial court docket that the statute’s plain language confers immunity from go well with upon customers and that “Congress selected to immunize all customers who repost[] the content material of others.” That particular person customers are immunized from claims of defamation for retweeting content material that they didn’t create is clear from the statutory language.

That leaves the plaintiff with one possibility: asking the nation’s Supreme Court docket to try this case. It appears unlikely SCOTUS can be all in favour of delivering a ultimate ruling on a state-level defamation case that provides a number of choices for dismissal, even when it’s Part 230 taking heart stage right here. Sure justices could also be performing bizarre about 230’s immunity, however this lawsuit was a loser when the plaintiff determined to start out suing individuals who didn’t create the inflammatory put up noticed (and distributed) by others.

Filed Beneath: debbie banaian, defamation, new hampshire, retweets, part 230, college students, customers