Court Rightly Finds That GoDaddy Isn't Liable For Revenge Porn Site
from the for-now... dept
In the ongoing attempts to deal with the (very real and serious) issue of "revenge porn" websites, various parties have been trying desperately to blame third parties, rather than figuring out ways to go after those actually responsible. In one such case, victims of the site had gone after the host and registrar of the revenge porn site Texxxan.com, which happened to be GoDaddy. A Texas trial court totally ignored Section 230 in finding GoDaddy liable. Thankfully, an appeals court has now reversed that, highlighting the importance of Section 230, and the lengths to which many will go to in an attempt to get around it, in order to blame third parties for the actions of others. Basically, the plaintiffs here tried to find a way around Section 230 by arguing that it "didn’t apply to intentional torts, obscene material that isn’t constitutionally protected, and civil lawsuits based on criminal statutes." However, the court rejected all of that:All of plaintiffs’ claims against GoDaddy stem from GoDaddy’s publication of the contested content, its failure to remove the content, or its alleged violation of the Texas Penal Code for the same conduct. Allowing plaintiffs’ to assert any cause of action against GoDaddy for publishing content created by a third party, or for refusing to remove content created by a third party would be squarely inconsistent with section 230.As Andrew McDiarmid at CDT points out, this is important:
Last week’s opinion reads like a greatest-hits record of Section 230 case law, and makes it clear that because GoDaddy had nothing to do with the creation of the content at issue it cannot be held liable. This is the right answer; hosts like GoDaddy must be protected from liability for their users’ (and their users’ users’) speech so that the Internet remains a vibrant platform for free expression and access to information. Otherwise, who would be willing to take the risk of opening up their servers for public hosting?Of course, this is not the final word on this. The attorney for the plaintiffs has said that they will appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. And of course (once again) we have the issue that the person who has been credited with helping to draft the upcoming federal revenge porn law has flat out said that it's her intention to make companies like GoDaddy liable.
The plaintiffs attempted to argue that Section 230 doesn’t apply when the content at issue is illegal – an argument the judges rightly rejected. Shielding hosts from liability when their users upload illegal content is precisely the point of Section 230: those who post such content – not those who host it – should be legally responsible for it. Thankfully, the court recognized as much, writing that such a reading of the statute “would undermine its purpose.”
"The impact [of a federal law] for victims would be immediate," Franks said. "If it became a federal criminal law that you can't engage in this type of behavior, potentially Google, any website, Verizon, any of these entities might have to face liability for violations."Indeed, this would target the GoDaddy's of the world as well. I recognize that there are serious issues involved in revenge porn, but targeting third parties like web hosts and search engines is idiotic. It will have tremendous unintended First Amendment consequences.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: liability, revenge porn, section 230, texas
Companies: godaddy, texxxan.com
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Except, that doesn't really apply in these situations because the users are NOT subordinates. They are entirely outside of the organization, and therefor the people in charge aren't responsible for their actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"unintended" consequences
What makes you think the consequences are unintended? Think of the power that such a law would give to all "right-thinking" folks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, also two other factors:
1. Laziness. It's so much EASIER to go after the big intermediary than deal with those actually responsible.
2. Money. The intermediaries often have a lot of it.
Hence the reason we often refer to these things as "Steve Dallas" lawsuits from this old comic:
http://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1986/06/22/#.U1AvQPldVgw
Actually, the order above is wrong. It's money first (and maybe last too).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "unintended" consequences
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
On point 1, any attempt to determine a site's ownership will take some work and possibly a few subpoenas, which costs money. This is money that someone has to front.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So, I would say you're only partly right with the laziness and money explanation, but since you've invoked Bloom County, I find it impossible to disagree. Bloom County logic is unassailable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I support this appeal
Neither, of course, should their router manufacturer (Cisco, Juniper, whoever) since of course their hardware physically transmitted the bits compromising the web site. And the server vendor (Dell? IBM? HP?) must also be held accountable. So too the network cable vendor, the rack hardware vendor, the disk drive manufacturers, the CPU makers, the memory vendor and the supplier of the operating system. Let's also not forget the application software (Apache Software Foundation?) and whoever wrote the scripting language used to power the site (Larry Wall?) nor should we forget the OS author (Linus Torvalds?).
Someone must pay because...ummm...because someone must pay!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You're assuming it's unintended, I wouldn't make that jump personally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Similarly, if GoDaddy knowingly hosts a site that is either criminally or civilly wronging people, it would normally be held liable.
Section 230 prevents that, and in most cases I agree that Section 230 is a good idea. I think in the case where the *purpose* of the site is something that's contrary to law, and GoDaddy has notice of this, I would approve of a revision to Section 230 to allow liability.
Of course, you have to make sure you don't let the exception swallow the rule.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But if they *do* have reasonable notice, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to either stop aiding the wrongful activity or risk/accept some liability for their knowing aid.
That's the way it is generally in the law, and as much as the Internet needs freedom to develop, I'm not convinced that blanket immunity (it's not really blanket, since it doesn't apply to IP-related claims) is the best balance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "unintended" consequences
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, I'm not suggesting Section 230 should be eliminated, but I think there is some level of malfeasance that shouldn't be covered. What I mean by that is that if we're talking about a forum that every once in a while has some tortious or criminal contributions by third parties, that's not enough.
However, if there is evidence that the primary purpose of the forum is to engage or solicit tortious or criminal activity, maybe there's room for liability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, I don't think it's unreasonable for a phone company to stop providing service to a number that is used exclusively or primarily for making illegal or tortious phone calls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
After all, that's how secondary liability works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This then places the onus on the accuser to show that the provider DID know (not "should of" known) and that they had an obligation to at the minimum restrict access until at such time an authorised trier of facts makes a decision.
Though a 'primary purpose' has to be also proven.. and "just maybe", assumptions, "becasue I am butthurt" or "protect the children" have no bearings whatsoever on this. The bar needs to be set high
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I'm not suggesting that a mere accusation should be sufficient for liability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please note; for web scale services the provider should not be expected to investigate any accusations, they can all too easily be swamped by accusations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow that sentence scares me, and I hope I never see it again. Beyond slippery slope and approaching full-on vertical drop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can understand the fear of censorship, etc., but the public doesn't benefit from seeing people naked in images or videos they never intended the world to see.
Is there a way to balance privacy rights with the need to prevent the slippery slope to laws that protect people from embarrassment over faux pas, etc., that we actually might need to know about? I'm thinking of Mitt Romney's 47% remarks that cost him the election. We sure as hell needed to know that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]