Quick Summary
Sidney Blumenthal (plaintiff) and Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal (plaintiff) sued Matt Drudge (defendant) and America Online (AOL) (defendant) over a defamatory story published on the Drudge Report about Sidney’s alleged spousal abuse past and made available to AOL subscribers.
The issue was whether AOL could be held liable for defamation for content it did not create but distributed. The court concluded that under § 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996, AOL was immune from such liability and granted summary judgment in favor of AOL.
Facts of the Case
Matt Drudge (defendant) operated the Drudge Report, an Internet gossip column with a wide subscription base. America Online (AOL) (defendant), an Internet service provider, entered into a contract with Drudge to feature the Drudge Report to its subscribers. The agreement allowed AOL to remove content that violated its terms of service.
Sidney Blumenthal (plaintiff), soon to be assistant to President Clinton, and his wife Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal (plaintiff) became the subject of a Drudge Report story alleging that Sidney had a history of spousal abuse. The story was later retracted and an apology issued, but the Blumenthals sued Drudge and AOL for defamation.
The publication and distribution of the defamatory statement on the Internet, which resulted in the Blumenthals seeking legal remedy for the harm they alleged they suffered due to Drudge’s report made widely available through AOL’s service.
Procedural History
- The Blumenthals filed a defamation lawsuit against Matt Drudge and AOL.
- AOL filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming immunity under § 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996.
- The district court held a hearing on AOL’s motion.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether America Online, Inc. (AOL) is immune from defamation liability under § 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996 for content created by a third party, Matt Drudge, and made available on its service.
Rule of Law
Under § 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996, providers of interactive computer services are not to be treated as publishers or speakers of information provided by another information content provider and are therefore immune from defamation liability.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court recognized that AOL was an interactive computer service provider and not the publisher or speaker of the content in question, as it was created by Matt Drudge.
The court highlighted Congress’ intention to promote the free exchange of information on the Internet with minimal government interference by providing immunity to service providers from tort liability for content created by others. The court reasoned that holding AOL liable would go against this legislative judgment and contradict the purpose of § 230.
Despite acknowledging the active role AOL played in promoting and disseminating Drudge’s content, the court adhered to the language of § 230, which clearly provides immunity to service providers like AOL even when they exercise editorial control over the content.
Conclusion
The court granted AOL’s motion for summary judgment, effectively immunizing AOL from defamation liability under § 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996.
Key Takeaways
- Interactive computer service providers like AOL are granted immunity from defamation liability for third-party content under § 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996.
- The policy choice by Congress to protect free speech on the Internet outweighs holding interactive services liable for content they did not create but host or distribute.
- The court’s decision reinforces the principle that service providers are not to be treated as publishers or speakers of third-party content.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes an interactive computer service provider under Section 230 of the CDA?
An interactive computer service provider is any entity offering or enabling computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including services that provide users with internet connectivity and platforms that host user-generated content.
- For example: A social media platform such as Twitter, where users independently post content, acts as an interactive computer service provider covered by Section 230 immunities.
How do courts determine whether an entity is a publisher or speaker of content?
Courts evaluate the extent of the entity’s involvement in content creation and dissemination. If the entity merely hosts or transmits third-party content without influencing its creation, it’s not a publisher or speaker.
- For example: An online forum where users submit book reviews would not make the forum owner a publisher of the content unless they were involved in writing or editing the reviews.
What are the policy justifications behind granting immunity to service providers for third-party content?
Immunity under Section 230 is premised on promoting freedom of speech and innovation on the internet, safeguarding interactive services from endless litigation, and incentivizing self-regulation without fear of legal repercussions for user-generated content.
- For example: Immunity allows a user-generated content platform like YouTube to operate without being held liable for every video uploaded, fostering a diverse range of voices and content while relying on community guidelines to moderate harmful material.
References
Was this case brief helpful?