EU's Departing Internet Commissioner Leaves Behind Copyright Plan That Will Outlaw Basic Internet Functions

from the crazy-uncle dept

We've written quite a few times about EU Commissioner Gunther Oettinger, a bigoted luddite, who bizarrely was put in charge of internet regulations for no clear reason at all. His main focus seemed to be on putting in place policies whose sole goal was to harm the internet because many key internet companies are American. Oettinger, who seems to be magnetically connected to all sorts of scandals has failed upward to a new job as the EU's budget chief, but as EU Parliament Member Julia Reda notes, he's still leaving a trail of internet destruction in his wake. In particular, she highlights ten everyday internet activities that would be outlawed if Oettinger's copyright and internet proposals become law. It's a pretty eye-opening list, and should raise serious questions about why Oettinger was ever put in charge of anything having to do with the internet.

Among the list of things: sharing a snippet of a news article, retweeting a "creative" new headline, posting a blog post to Facebook, posting unmoderated comments to many platforms, or uploading content to Wikipedia. There's more in the list, but the crux of Oettinger's proposals were basically written by big legacy publishers and Hollywood -- looking to hamstring any competition from the internet at all, and requiring all sorts of new regulations, payments and monitoring requirements for any internet platform that let's users actually do stuff online. Reda points out the true irony here, in that the bills wouldn't actually impact actual cyberlockers -- which the industry often claims are pits of infringement, but rather seem uniquely targeted at big, established successful internet companies by industries who have failed to adapt to a changing internet.

It's good that Oettinger is leaving that role overseeing internet regulations, but these proposals still exist and may still move forward. Hopefully, the EU's next internet regulations czar actually has a bit more of a clue.

Filed Under: copyright, eu, gunther oettinger, intermediary liability, internet, julia reda

Google Finally Wins One Of Those Nutty Defamation Lawsuits Down Under

from the about-time dept

Over the past few years, we've written about a series of truly nutty court decisions in Australia that have found Google and Yahoo liable for defamation for certain search results. In writing about it, we've seriously angered some of the plaintiffs in those cases, including one who went on a rampage posting a bunch of blatantly made up info about us, apparently thinking they were "proving a point" about how we'd get upset about defamatory material being posted about us. Another, Milorad Trkulja, sent us one of the nuttiest legal threats we've ever seen, which was then followed up with an even more ridiculous threat from an Australian lawyer who seemed to not fully understand the legal threats he was making (nor the difference between "drivel" and "dribble.")

Mr. Trkulja is back in the news, as it seems his luck with the Australian courts has run out. If you don't recall, the origin of his case was that if you did a Google image search on Australian organized crime, sometimes Trkulja's own image would show up. Trkulja sued Google and Yahoo over this and (somewhat amazingly) won, with the effective argument being that once Trkulja alerted them to this they should have fixed the search results. There are a number of reasons why this is a bad decision, as we've discussed in previous posts, but suffice it to say, holding a search engine liable for search results people don't like opens up a huge pandora's box of problems.

Anyway, it seems that these kinds of lawsuits have become more popular in Australia, with another one appearing just last month. But, Trkulja's attempt to get even more money from Google has come up short on appeal.

In 2013 he launched another defamation action against Google, and the internet company responded by applying to the Supreme Court to have the proceedings set aside because, it argued, his case had no real prospect of success. A judge dismissed Google's application.

But Google appealed against that ruling, and the Victorian Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday in Google's favour when it set aside Mr Trkulja's application.

The Court of Appeal found Google was not the primary publisher of the images and could not be found responsible for the results of online searches, which were produced automatically.

The search results were also incapable of being found defamatory of Mr Trkulja, the appeal court ruled.

Finally some good news on these kinds of cases down under. And, because Trkulja and friends may stop by here and freak out again, let's be clear about what we're saying: no one is saying that it's good that Google's search results popped up some unfortunate anomalies around your images. But it happened. That doesn't mean that Google is liable, or that you should have the right to edit Google's search results by lawsuit (or to demand lots and lots of cash from Google). Search engines aren't doing this on purpose, and it's not defamatory. It's just giving the best results it can, and sometimes those aren't perfect.

Filed Under: australia, defamation, intermediary liability, milorad trkulja, stuart gibson
Companies: google

Germany Wants To Hold Facebook Criminally Liable If It Doesn't Find & Delete 'Hate' Speech

from the this-is-a-bad-idea dept

We've been pointing out that in the rush to claim that Facebook is a media company that must take responsibility for the content that is posted and shared on the site, there's really an implicit call for blocking content that is somehow deemed "bad." People keep acting like Facebook, rather than its users, has the responsibility to edit what is on the site. That's dangerous -- and for yet another example of how, we've now got a German official saying that Facebook has to be classified as a media property and be held criminally liable if it doesn't magically delete "hate speech."

This is really, really dangerous. Yes, we know that Germany has much stricter hate speech laws, but if you have to have them, at least hold the proper party responsible: those doing the speaking (and, yes, as we've pointed out repeatedly, hate speech laws are almost always abused by governments to silence and punish people they don't like). Facebook, to some extent, has brought this on itself. In the past, it's made promises, to Germany in particular about how it will help curb "hate speech" on the site. And, eventually, the government is going to get upset and say "you're not doing enough." Earlier this year, Facebook (along with Google, Microsoft, and Twitter) tried to appease European bureaucrats by signing an agreement to respond to complaints of hate speech within 24 hours. But now officials want more. Because once you give governments the power to censor speech, they're always going to want more.

None of this is to say that Facebook needs to leave any particular speech up on its site. It's a private company and gets to make those decisions. But when governments get involved, things get scary quickly -- especially as the EU does still have safe harbors in the Ecommerce Directive that are supposed to limit liability for platforms. The statement made here, by German Justice Minister Heiko Maas, is a deliberate attempt to get around that Directive by declaring Facebook no different than a newspaper, which is responsible for what it prints. That's ridiculous on any number of levels, starting with the fact that newspapers literally pick everything that they print, whereas a platform like Facebook doesn't. It's all on the users.

The really ridiculous thing here is that statements like this make things worse. It makes it clear to these platform companies that no matter how much they try to appease government officials on things like this, they're always going to push for more and more censorship power.

Filed Under: criminal liability, ecommerce directive, free speech, germany, hate speech, heiko maas, intermediary liability, media, platforms
Companies: facebook

Judge Leaning Strongly Towards Tossing Pimping Charges Against Backpage Executives

from the when-all-you-have-is-a-grandstand... dept

Because there doesn't seem to be a politician out there that can interact with Backpages without grandstanding, the attorneys general of two states -- California's Kamala Harris and Texas' Ken Paxton -- combined forces to have company executives arrested on pimping charges.

The criminal complaint somehow tried to portray the fees charged by Backpage as profiting from prostitution. While it should have been explicitly clear Backpages was immune from prosecution thanks to Section 230, the two AGs decided to close their eyes, ears, and brains and press forward.

It's likely nothing will come of this misguided prosecution -- one that appeared to be instigated almost solely for the press it would generate, rather than for its legal merits. The California court handling the case has pretty much thrown the whole thing out.

It's a tentative ruling that doesn't have the full force of a published opinion behind it, but it does give the solid impression that any dreams of being able to prosecute site owners for third-party content will have to be taken to Congress, rather than local courts -- though, the judge has said he'll allow the parties to present more arguments before making a final decision. As it stands now, Section 230 prevents the sort of thing these two AGs are pursuing.

From the opinion [PDF]:

Backpage’s decision to charge money to allow a third party to post content, as well as any decisions regarding posting rules, search engines and information on how a user can increase ad visibility are all traditional publishing decisions and are generally immunized under the CDA. In short, the victimization resulted from the third party’s placement of the ad, not because Backpage profiting from the ad placement.

This does some pretty severe damage the state's argument that charging for ads means profiting from sex trafficking. The last paragraph of the ruling similarly upholds Backpage's Section 230 immunity, even as it moved content from site to site.

Here, the People allege that Defendants “created” content and are not entitled to immunity. However, on the face of the allegations, Defendants have, at most, republished material that was created by a third party. The People allege that the content was taken from ads placed by Backpage Escort users and posted onto EvilEmpire.com. The declaration in support of Defendants’ arrest warrant states that the ads placed in EvilEmpire.com were “essentially identical” to the ads placed by the third party on Backpage.com and that EvilEmpire was an “additional platform for Backpage Escort ads.” This demonstrates republication, not content creation. Republication is entitled to immunity under the CDA. (Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33, 63.)

To make the charges stick, the state would have to prove that the Backpage actually participated in sex trafficking -- something no one has even alleged at this point. Instead, those fighting Backpage have simply chosen to attack the most visible target, rather than those posting ads and/or exploiting underage prostitutes.

The ruling says there's only one way to have the supposed immunity "problem" addressed and that's to push Congress into doing something about it.

As stated above, Congress stuck a balance in favor of free speech in that Congress did not wish to hold liable online publishers for the action of publishing third party speech and thus provided for both a foreclosure from prosecution and an affirmative defense at trial. Congress has spoken on this matter and it is for Congress, not this Court, to revisit.

No one should be in any hurry for Congress to take another look at Section 230 immunity. Right now, it does a very solid job protecting websites and social media platforms from the speech and actions of their users. Without it, the internet would be a much smaller, more-locked down venue for communication and nowhere near as useful for disseminating information. Anything Congress would do at this point would only harm it.

Politicians and prosecutors need to stop taking the easy route and go after those actually breaking the law. If cops want to track down sex traffickers and haul them to court, fantastic. But it does no one any good to pursue baseless pimping charges against site owners, rather than those actually engaged in criminal activity.

Filed Under: cda 230, intermediary liability, kamala harris, ken paxton, pimping, section 230
Companies: backpage

Court Not Impressed By Airbnb's Argument Against The City Of San Francisco

from the well,-that's-a-problem dept

Earlier this year, we noted that a bunch of cities were looking to make Airbnb liable for residents in those cities using the platform without following certain city rules. As we noted at the time, this seemed to pretty clearly violate Section 230 of the CDA, which says that platforms cannot be liable for the actions of their users. San Francisco went ahead with such a law anyway, even though it tried to rework it at the last minute to deal with Airbnb's points on why it was illegal. The case ended up in court either way -- and unfortunately, the initial ruling has sided with San Francisco over Airbnb.

Now, I know that for a variety of reasons, there are people who just flat out hate Airbnb and think that it's somehow bad or problematic for cities or rental prices or whatever. I don't think the data supports this, but either way, you should be concerned about the results here. This isn't about whether or not Airbnb is "good" or "bad" for cities. It's about a fundamental principle on which the internet operates -- which has allowed the internet to grow and to thrive, and which has protected free speech on the internet, by not making platforms magically liable for what users say or do. But the court here basically doesn't care about all of that.

The judge tries to carefully parse things out to argue that under this law, Airbnb isn't liable for its users' actions, but its own:

As the text and plain meaning of the Ordinance demonstrate, it in no way treats plaintiffs as the publishers or speakers of the rental listings provided by hosts. It does not regulate what can or cannot be said or posted in the listings. It creates no obligation on plaintiffs’ part to monitor, edit, withdraw or block the content supplied by hosts. To the contrary, as San Francisco has emphasized in its briefs and at oral argument, plaintiffs are perfectly free to publish any listing they get from a host and to collect fees for doing so -- whether the unit is lawfully registered or not -- without threat of prosecution or penalty under the Ordinance.... The Ordinance holds plaintiffs liable only for their own conduct, namely for providing, and collecting a fee for, Booking Services in connection with an unregistered unit.

But that misunderstands both the nature of the platform and the nature of Section 230. First of all, the law absolutely creates an obligation on Airbnb to monitor, withdraw or block the content supplied by hosts -- because if they do not, then they will face significant liability. The idea that it's only targeting Airbnb's "conduct" of booking an unregistered unit is simply incorrect. The platform allows anyone to put up any unit. Not Airbnb. Not only does this new regulation falsely attribute to Airbnb the actions of its users, this judge does too. That's a problem.

We've written a lot about Section 230 over the years, and unfortunately in the last few months a bunch of cases have chipped away at these important protections. In each case, the courts seem to think that the situation in front of them is somehow unique and Section 230 shouldn't apply. Considering how important Section 230 has been to the internet as a whole and the protection of free speech, we should be very, very concerned about so many of these cases picking apart the law and adding serious liability. It won't end well. Hopefully Airbnb appeals this... and the 9th Circuit doesn't muck it up.

Filed Under: cda 230, intermediary liability, liability, san francisco, section 230
Companies: airbnb

In The Rush To Blame Facebook, Come The Calls To Suppress Ideas People Disagree With

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Yesterday I wrote that people rushing to blame Facebook for the election results were being ridiculous, and it generated a fair bit of discussion (much of it on Twitter). And this was before NYMag's Max Read went out and wrote an article literally titled Donald Trump Won Because of Facebook. Here's the crux of Max's argument, which is similar to the argument many others have been making:

The most obvious way in which Facebook enabled a Trump victory has been its inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news. Fake news is not a problem unique to Facebook, but Facebook’s enormous audience, and the mechanisms of distribution on which the site relies — i.e., the emotionally charged activity of sharing, and the show-me-more-like-this feedback loop of the news feed algorithm — makes it the only site to support a genuinely lucrative market in which shady publishers arbitrage traffic by enticing people off of Facebook and onto ad-festooned websites, using stories that are alternately made up, incorrect, exaggerated beyond all relationship to truth, or all three. (To really hammer home the cyberdystopia aspect of this: A significant number of the sites are run by Macedonian teenagers looking to make some scratch.)

All throughout the election, these fake stories, sometimes papered over with flimsy “parody site” disclosures somewhere in small type, circulated throughout Facebook: The Pope endorses Trump. Hillary Clinton bought $137 million in illegal arms. The Clintons bought a $200 million house in the Maldives. The valiant efforts of Snopes and other debunking organizations were insufficient; Facebook’s labyrinthine sharing and privacy settings mean that fact-checks get lost in the shuffle. Often, no one would even need to click on the story for the headline to become a widely distributed talking point, repeated elsewhere online, or, sometimes, in real life.

Meanwhile Bloomberg had a big piece, saying that Facebook (and Twitter) employees are "grappling with their role" in helping to elect Trump.

Online (on Facebook, of course), current and former employees debated the company's role as an influencer. Bobby Goodlatte, a Facebook product designer from 2008 to 2012, according to his LinkedIn, today said the company's news feed was responsible for fueling “highly partisan, fact-light media outlets” that propelled Donald Trump's ascension to the presidency. “News feed optimizes for engagement,” Goodlatte wrote. “As we’ve learned in this election, bullshit is highly engaging.”

These stories sound convenient. And my Twitter feed is chock full of people -- often people in the media who are already "angry" about Facebook "stealing" their ad revenue -- making similar noises about how Facebook needs to "fix" this. And these stories tell a neat and convenient tale, a pre-packaged "thing" to blame. And they're all bullshit. Yes, Facebook had lots of people passing around fake news stories, or misleading news stories. And, yes, lots of people live in bubbles where they only see/read/hear stuff that they are prone to agree with. But this narrative that it was Facebook's "primed for engagement, not truth" algorithm that got people to go out and vote for Trump is both simplistic and dangerous. Let's take each problem separately.

Too Simplistic:

Blaming the Facebook algorithm for sharing fake news is too simplistic in that it gives the algorithm too much power and takes the responsibility away from human beings as living, thinking creatures. We love to blame the tools. It's practically a national pasttime, searching for the moral panic du jour to blame for people doing things that some other people don't like or find problematic. It's much easier to blame the tools.

Even worse is that it assumes millions of people are pure idiots. And, I know, among many people this may be a popular opinion right now. That if they supported "the other side" they must be complete idiots. But that's wrong. There are idiot supporters of every candidate in this election -- and we can all highlight our favorite that somehow got onto the news. But lots and lots and lots of people who voted for Trump weren't doing so because some Facebook algorithm "tricked" them, but because they legitimately believed that the status quo wasn't working and was problematic, and an awful lot of "the establishment" wanted them to shut up about what wasn't working. You can argue that they were misled about what was and what wasn't working, but again, that goes back to the idea that tens of millions of people are so stupid that they change their minds based on fake stories on Facebook.

Too Dangerous:

I write an awful lot about Section 230 of the CDA and the idea of "intermediary liability" protections and I know that some people's eyes glaze over at those terms. But there's a fundamental underlying principle behind those things and it's this: if you blame a platform for the actions of its users, you end up with massive censorship and dangerous limits on free speech and innovation.

The people calling for Facebook to "fix" this problem don't see where this leads, but it's not good. In various conversations I've had in response to yesterday's article, I keep drilling down and trying to see what people think the "solution" to this "problem" is, and it inevitably comes back to something along the lines of "well, Facebook needs to stop the fake news from spreading." If only it could. Fake news, rumors, conspiracy theories, echo chambers and "bubbles" predate Facebook by a long shot. While the musical Hamilton is reminding people that some of our founding fathers were known to fight hard against each other, not everyone is aware of the spreading of rumors and lies between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as they campaigned for the presidency in 1800:

Jefferson secretly hired the famed pamphleteer James Callendar, who had previously seriously damaged the reputation of Adams' fellow Federalist Alexander Hamilton, to paint Adams and the Federalist party as a friend to British royalty and Adams as being bent on starting a war with France in order to further an alliance with King George. More to the point, Callender described Adams as a "hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

Adams' Federalist surrogates also brought out the proverbial long knives. A Federalist publication described Jefferson as "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." Allegations were made that he cheated his British creditors, was a supporter of French radicalism and assassinations of the aristocracy, and that he made a habit out of sleeping with his female slaves.

Or read about the history of the 1828 election between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, and you might notice more than a few parallels to today -- including the spreading of fake stories about each candidate by surrogates. Here's just a snippet:

One Adams newspaper even wrote, "General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!"

In 1876, opponents of Rutherford B. Hayes spread the rumor that he had shot his own mother. In 1928, supporters of Herbert Hoover started spreading rumors that (the Catholic) Al Smith was connecting the newly built Holland Tunnel in NY all the way to the Vatican so that the Pope would weigh in on all Presidential matters. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower supporters distributed pamphlets claiming that his opponent, Adlai Stephenson had once killed a young girl "in a jealous rage."

Point being: fake news is spread in basically every election for the US President in history. It didn't take Facebook's algorithms, and it won't go away if Facebook's algorithms change.

In fact, it's likely to make things even worse. Remember the mostly made up "controversy" about Facebook suppressing conservative news? Remember the outrage it provoked (or have you already forgotten?). Just imagine what would happen if Facebook now decided that it was only going to let people share "true" news. Whoever gets to decide that kind of thing has tremendous power -- and there will be immediately claims of bias and hiding "important" stories -- even if they're bullshit. It will lead many of the people who are already angry about things to argue that their views are being suppressed and hidden and that they are being "censored." That's not a good recipe. And it's an especially terrible recipe if people really want to understand why so many people are so angry at the status quo.

Telling them that the news needs to be censored to "protect" them isn't going to magically turn Trump supporters into Hillary supporters. It will just convince them that they're even more persecuted.

Other than "censoring" certain content, the only other suggestion I seriously heard was someone suggesting that Facebook should force-feed its users opposing views. Like that's actually going to change anyone's mind, rather than get them pissed off again. And, once again, this seems like people failing to take responsibility for their own actions. If you don't have any friends who supported Trump, don't lump that on Facebook.

There are legitimate questions about whether you can better inform a populace. But censorship and force-feeding information is general paternalistic nonsense that totally misunderstands the issue and misdiagnoses the problem. As Clay Shirky noted earlier this year, too many Hillary supporters thought that "bringing fact checkers to a culture war" would win out, when that's never going to happen. Fighting Facebook's algorithim is more of the same nonsense. It's based in the faulty belief that those who voted for "the other" are simply too dumb to understand the truth, and if they just got more truth, they'd buy it. It's not understanding why they voted the way they did. It's looking for easy scapegoats.

Facebook's algorithm is an easy target, but it's even less likely to solve a culture war than fact checkers.

Filed Under: blame, cda 230, censorship, donald trump, fake news, intermediary liability, presidential elections, section 230, social media
Companies: facebook

Arrested Backpage Execs Ask Kamala Harris To Drop Bogus Case She Herself Has Admitted She Has No Authority To Bring

from the grandstanding dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional charges brought by California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against the online classified site Backpage.com. We focused on the fact that Section 230 clearly protects Backpage from such a lawsuit, and went into detail on the ridiculousness of Harris' "investigator" using the fact that Backpage itself actually worked with him to track down, remove, and block ads for prostitution as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing.

The execs are now hitting back -- as they should. They've asked the court to dump the case with a detailed and thorough filing. It highlights that the charges violate the First Amendment, Section 230 of the CDA and, at an even more basic level, the complaint doesn't even satisfy the requirements for "pimping," which is what they're charged with.

The AG’s Complaint and theory of prosecution are frankly outrageous. The AG seeks to impose criminal liability on a website simply because it published and received fees for third-party ads. The AG’s chrages directly contravene the First Amendment and the immunity afforded to websites under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230. Escort ads on Backpage.com are protected speech under the First Amendment, as several courts have held. The AG cannot arrest, imprison and refuse to release individuals associated with the website simply based on an investigator’s opinions about what he believes is “obvious” about escort ads. Courts upholding the First Amendment rights of Backpage.com and its users have rejected the same tack time and again. The First Amendment also expressly precludes state authorities from imposing criminal liability on parties that publish or distribute speech absent proof of scienter, i.e., that the publisher knew the specific information published was unlawful. The Supreme Court so held over fifty years ago, Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), recognizing the First Amendment prohibits states from imposing criminal liability that would require publishers to review all materials they distribute, because such a requirement would severely chill speech. More specifically, the AG’s theory expressly violates Section 230, which Congress enacted twenty years ago to preserve and promote free speech on the Internet by immunizing website operators from liability for publishing content provided by third-party users. Section 230 preempts all contrary state laws—including state criminal laws. Indeed, Attorney General Harris has acknowledged that Section 230 precludes her from prosecuting Backpage.com, but she has now commenced a prosecution to do precisely what she admits Section 230 prohibits.

That point about Harris "acknowledging" that Section 230 bars this lawsuit is a big one. It's based on the letter that Harris signed onto, from a bunch of Attorneys General to Congress, asking it to change Section 230 to grant state AGs the ability to go after Backpage. We had written about this letter three years ago when it was sent, but I had forgotten that it explicitly called out Backpage.com, and noted that the reason they wanted Section 230 modified was because they knew it was immune from prosecution by those state AGs. The letter (again, that Harris herself signed), says:

In instance after instance, State and local authorities discover that the vehicles for advertising the victims of the child sex trade to the world are online classified ad services, such as Backpage.com. The involvement of these advertising companies is not incidental—these companies have constructed their business models around income gained from participants in the sex trade. But, as it has most recently been interpreted, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”) prevents State and local law enforcement agencies from prosecuting these companies. This must change. The undersigned Attorneys General respectfully request that the U.S. Congress amend the CDA....

Yet now, despite no change being made to the law, Harris thinks she can bring a case against them?

Separately, the lawyers have sent a letter to Harris directly reminding her of this and asking her to drop the case:

Ads posted on Backpage.com are protected by the First Amendment, as several courts have held. As the Seventh Circuit recently said in enjoining the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois and rejecting much the same theories that the State asserts here: “[A] public official who tries to shut down an avenue of expression of ideas and opinions through actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction is violating the First Amendment.” ... The State cannot prosecute a publisher for publishing speech with absolutely no showing that the speech was unlawful, much less any allegation that defendants ever even saw the specific ads that are the basis for its charges. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, states cannot punish parties that publish or distribute speech without proving they had knowledge of illegality, as any other rule would severely chill speech.

More specifically, Section 230 precludes the charges the State seeks to assert. As you know, Section 230 bars state-law claims against websites and other interactive computer services based on the publication of third-party content. A website cannot be held liable for publishing content submitted by users or for failing to block or remove such content, notwithstanding any allegations that it knew or should have known the content concerned unlawful conduct. Section 230 expressly preempts all inconsistent civil and criminal state laws. Literally hundreds of cases have applied and underscored the broad immunity that Section 230 provides and that Congress intended so as to avoid government interference— especially by state authorities—that would chill free speech on the Internet.

Indeed, in July 2013, you and other state attorneys general signed a letter to various members of Congress urging that Section 230 be amended to exempt state criminal laws from CDA immunity so that you could pursue Backpage.com. See July 23, 2013 letter from National Association of Attorneys General.... It is troubling that the State is now pursuing a prosecution you admitted you have no authority to bring.

Accordingly, the State should dismiss the complaint and all charges against Messrs. Ferrer, Lacey and Larkin. We write now to urge that this happen immediately.

Finally, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin released a statement about this mess, in which they directly suggest that this whole thing was about Harris trying to seal her election to the Senate, and highlighting how infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio tried to arrest them a decade ago, and they ended up winning $4 million for civil rights violations. But, they note, Harris probably doesn't care, because she got the headlines and the press coverage and the TV cameras covering them doing the perp walk in orange jumpsuits.

Of course, knowing the law was of modest comfort as we were being booked into the Sacramento County jail and paraded in front of the press in orange jump suits last week on a charge Ms. Harris knew she had no legal authority to bring when she brought it. We never set out when we published our first newspaper over 40 years ago to become the first American journalists to claim the rueful distinction of having been jailed both for editorials we wrote and advertising we published.

In 2007 we were arrested in Phoenix by agents of Sheriff Joe Arpaio for having published a story in the Phoenix New Times criticizing Arpaio for misusing a Grand Jury to harass New Times and its readers. We sued Arpaio in federal court under the Civil Rights Act and settled the case against the Sheriff and his handpicked Special Prosecutor for nearly $4 million.

[....]

Make no mistake; Kamala Harris has won all that she was looking to win when she had us arrested. Like Sherriff Arpaio, she issued her sanctimonious public statement, controlled her media cycle and got her “perp walk” on the evening news. Arpaio didn’t pay a dime of the civil damages we won against him. The taxpayers of Maricopa County did. And if the polls are any indication, Harris will be warmly ensconced in the United States Senate by the time her blatant violations of the First Amendment and federal law are finally adjudicated. She won’t pay. The taxpayers of California will.

And, as Kamala Harris knows, it probably won’t even make the evening news.

Indeed. This kind of bullshit seems like a massive abuse of power by Kamala Harris for the sake of grandstanding for her election campaign. She's yelled about Backpage for years, despite acknowledging she has no legal authority to go after them. And then, just a month before the election on her big campaign to become Senator, she magically decides to arrest them on charges she herself knows can't stick? That's a really fucked up abuse of power, stomping on the civil rights and Constitutional rights of these guys, and knowing damn well that once the case is lost, it's the taxpayers of California who will have to pay the bill. What shameful behavior by an elected official.

Filed Under: california, carl ferrer, cda 230, first amendment, free speech, grandstanding, intermediary liability, james larkin, kamala harris, ken paxton, michael lacey, pimping, prostitution, section 230
Companies: backpage.com

Pam Geller Doubles Down On Claims That Facebook Removing Her Posts Is Section 230-Enabled 'Government Censorship'

from the when-in-doubt,-press-repeat dept

Pam Geller has decided there's nothing like grabbing more shovels when you're already in a hole. [And that means it's time for notable "leftist publication" Techdirt to crank out another "little hit piece" filled with "hyperbole and nonsense," apparently...]

Geller doesn't like the way she's been treated by Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter and has decided the problem is Section 230 of the CDA. So, she's suing the DOJ for "enforcing" the immunity the government has granted to websites to shield them from being held responsible for user-generated content.

The DOJ responded to her lawsuit by pointing out that the DOJ doesn't ENFORCE anything. It's a defense service providers can raise when entities come after them for content posted by their users. In Geller's mind, Section 230 gives service providers the "right" to arbitrarily remove content. She's wrong, of course. It does no such thing. Instead, Section 230 prevents service providers from being held civilly liable for making "good faith" efforts to remove objectionable content. The rest of what Geller's complaining about can be traced back to each provider's terms of service and their individual translations of what that means in terms of Geller's often-inflammatory content.

Geller continues to insist this is about suing Facebook, even though Facebook isn't a named party. And her response to the DOJ's motion to dismiss strongly suggests she feels she can't directly sue any service provider for taking down her content because of Section 230. This is also incorrect. She may have almost no chance of winning the suit, but nothing in Section 230 prevents service providers from being sued for allegedly discriminatory behavior. From Geller's opposition motion [PDF] (h/t Adam Steinbaugh):

By way of § 230, the Government is empowering this type of discrimination and censorship. By its own terms, § 230 permits Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube “to restrict access to or availability of material that [they] consider[] to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”

This is where Geller misreads "permits" as "orders." Section 230 does not place any content-based restrictions on speech. Instead, it immunizes service providers from civil liability for good faith content removal. Geller calls this immunization "government-sanctioned discrimination and censorship of speech" -- somehow finding a defense mechanism to be an avenue of attack. (She repeats her laughable assertion that Section 230 is a "heckler's veto" multiple times in the filing.)

From there, Geller theorizes that Section 230 would prevent Facebook, et al from being sued for violating California's anti-discrimination statutes. This theory is incorrect as well.

The pertinent part of Section 230 reads:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

This law immunizes Facebook from being held liable for, say, Pam Geller's controversial content -- even if a state law says otherwise. What it doesn't do is immunize Facebook from liability for violating California discrimination laws, which is where Geller has a somewhat more cognizable claim. Unfortunately for her, she's chosen to name the wrong defendants and file in the wrong jurisdiction. Continuing to misconstrue a defense as an attack, Geller insists that she has standing to sue the federal government for content removal performed by a private company.

The very reason why Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are able to engage in their discriminatory practices with impunity is § 230. See Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (concluding that § 230 foreclosed tort liability predicated on Facebook’s decision to allow or to remove content). In other words, the Government has sanctioned these discriminatory practices by placing them above the law. Consequently, the traceability element is satisfied.

If there's anything "traceable" here, it's the California location of the entities she mentions in her lawsuit (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) but has not named as defendants. California law is the angle she should be using to attack these companies for their allegedly "discriminatory" removal of her postings, but she has filed in federal court and named the DOJ as the defendant.

Geller notes that California law prohibits the sort of discriminatory behavior she's alleging:

Section 51 of the California Civil Code provides, in relevant part, All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

If her allegations are true and these service providers are discriminating against her, Section 230 would not immunize them against these claims. But even if she were to raise claims solely under this law, she would likely not succeed.

The law only requires company provide "access." It does not demand they allow anyone to do whatever they want once they're granted access. Under this law, Facebook can't deny Geller an account simply because it doesn't like her religious views, but it is under no obligation to allow her to post whatever she wants. The DOJ, in its motion to dismiss, addressed this point as well (even though it was under no obligation to make California's arguments for it).

Nor is it clear how California law can require a private social media company to publish Plaintiffs’ speech, see Compl. ¶¶ 46-61, or how such a state-law requirement would be consistent with the First Amendment, which arguably protects a social media company’s editorial control or judgment from government regulation that would require publication of a certain message.

If Geller were able to prove she was denied access based on her religious beliefs (and a temporary ban doesn't cut it, legally-speaking), Section 230 would not stand in the way of the civil suit Geller doesn't appear to actually want to file. All Section 230 immunizes against is holding Facebook civilly liable for content users like Pam Geller have posted. And Geller's main complaint is that Facebook keeps taking her posts down, not allowing them to stay up.

At best, Geller's extremely misguided lawsuit may eventually boil down to litigation directly implicating California's anti-discrimination law and how that is actually applied to service providers located in California, but with users all over the world. It may also result in a somewhat indirect challenge of that law's Constitutionality. But what it won't do is make the federal government responsible for Facebook's actions. And Geller, whose popularity and following largely relies on inflammatory speech, is only shooting herself in the foot by attacking Section 230. If this immunization were not provided to social media platforms, it's highly unlikely she'd have anything more than a self-hosted personal blog for a soapbox.

The final irony is that Geller is no doubt opposed to anti-discrimination laws like California's that force private businesses to cater to customers they'd rather not -- perhaps even in opposition to their own religious beliefs. (See also: same sex marriage/wedding cakes.) But she wants the government to step in and act as arbiters of private companies' terms of service and prevent the sort of discrimination she claims is taking place.

Filed Under: cda 230, doj, free speech, intermediary liability, pam geller, section 230
Companies: facebook

CA Supreme Court Agrees To Review Appeals Court's Bludgeoning Of Section 230 And First Amendment

from the needs-to-be-at-least-50%-less-obtuse dept

Hopefully some good news will follow the bad news handed out by the California Appeals Court earlier this year. In a ruling that did some serious damage to Section 230 protections and the First Amendment, the court decided to enforce an injunction against Yelp for a defamatory review -- despite Yelp not being an actual party to the lawsuit.

Dawn Hassell sued a former client over a defamatory review she allegedly posted on Yelp. The defendant, Ava Bird, never bothered to show up in court. Hassell secured a default judgment against Bird. All well and good, except for the fact that Hassell and the court brought Yelp into the equation, without ever giving the site a chance to respond to the proposed injunction.

This drive-by injunction opens the door for abuse by aggrieved parties. It allows plaintiffs to sue parties they're pretty sure won't show up in court, obtain default judgments, and use those judgments to force third parties to remove negative reviews, articles, etc. This eliminates any form of due process for third-party websites -- services that should be covered by Section 230 whether or not they voluntarily remove reviews. Yelp was never given a chance to respond to Hassell's allegations nor was it allowed to challenge the injunction she obtained.

Why the Appeals Court failed to see the potential for abuse or the due process issues raised is unclear. The good news is that the state's Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision. Eugene Volokh and a host of other free speech advocates and lawyers have filed a brief ahead of the Supreme Court's hearing, pointing out the host of negative consequences created by the lower court's misguided decision.

[T]he decision below offers plaintiffs a roadmap for violating these speakers’ rights. Say a business dislikes some comment in a newspaper’s online discussion section. The business can then sue the commenter, who might not have the money or expertise to fight the lawsuit. It can get a consent judgment (perhaps by threatening the commenter with the prospect of massive liability) or a default judgment. And it can then get a court to order the newspaper to delete the comment, even though the newspaper had no opportunity to challenge the claim, and may not have even heard about the claim until after the judgment was entered. This is directly analogous to what plaintiff Hassell did in this very case.

It's not as though shady reputation management outfits or thin-skinned entities need any encouragement to abuse the legal process to make criticism disappear. We've already seen abuse of both the DMCA process and the court system to push Google towards delisting reviews no court has actually found to be defamatory. The Appeals Court decision does nothing more than legitimize another shady tactic: suing someone who likely won't appear in court, but enforcing the judgment against a deeper-pocketed party who definitely would have made an appearance... if only they'd actually been named in the lawsuit.

The brief goes on to point out that orders like this -- predicated on arguments one party never had a chance to respond to -- are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

Yelp, Amazon, and other such sites cannot be ordered to remove an allegedly libelous post, without an opportunity to themselves dispute this restriction on their own speech rights. The Court of Appeal erred in treating Yelp as essentially lacking First Amendment rights here. See Pet. for Review 22 (copy of Court of Appeal opinion) (“Yelp’s factual position in this case is unlike that of the . . . appellants [in Marcus v. Search Warrants, 367 U.S. 717 (1961)], who personally engaged in protected speech activities by selling books, magazines and newspapers.”). A site such as Yelp or Amazon is, if anything, even more engaged in protected speech than a bookstore, and more like a magazine creator than just a magazine seller: It creates a coherent speech product—a Web page that aggregates readers’ comments—and distributes it to readers. That 47 U.S.C. § 230 immunizes Yelp from tort liability as a publisher for the material that it reproduces does not strip Yelp of its First Amendment rights as a creator and distributor of the speech aggregating the material.

It's almost unimaginable that this decision will be allowed to stand. It upends the legal process and creates a hostile environment for third-party content hosts in California. But it's impossible to claim this definitely will be overturned, what with the state's courts displaying an unfortunate amount of schizophrenia when handling Section 230-related cases. At stake here is the First Amendment, more than Section 230 protections, but both are definitely under attack. The Appeals Court has given plaintiffs a way to route around Section 230 and stifle speech hosted by services they'll never have to face off with in court.

Filed Under: dawn hassell, first amendment, intermediary liability, section 230, third party injunctions
Companies: yelp

EU Announces Absolutely Ridiculous Copyright Proposal That Will Chill Innovation, Harm Creativity

from the how-hard-did-they-work-to-make-it-this-bad? dept

This is not a surprise given the earlier leaks of what the EU Commission was cooking up for a copyright reform package, but the end result is here and it's a complete disaster for everyone. And I do mean everyone. Some will argue that it's a gift to Hollywood and legacy copyright interests -- and there's an argument that that's the case. But the reality is that this proposal is so bad that it will end up doing massive harm to everyone. It will clearly harm independent creators and the innovative platforms that they rely on. And, because those platforms have become so important to even the legacy entertainment industry, it will harm them too. And, worst of all, it will harm the public greatly. It's difficult to see how this proposal will benefit anyone, other than maybe some lawyers.

Not surprisingly, the EU Commission is playing up the fact that this package does knock down some geoblocking in setting up more of a "single market" for digital content, but after Hollywood started freaking out about it, that proposal got watered down so much that plenty of content will still be geo-blocked. And there's so much other stuff in here that's just really, really bad. As expected, it includes a ridiculous ancillary copyright scheme, which should really just be called the "Google tax" for linking to copyright-covered content.

The proposal does away with the liability limitations for platforms, effectively requiring any tech platform that allows user-generated/user-uploaded content to build or license their very own ContentID system. This is ridiculous. If the idea was to punish Google, this will do the opposite. Basically no startup will be able to afford this, and it will just lock in platforms like YouTube as the only option for content creators wishing to upload video. Protecting intermediary liability has been shown, time and time again, to enable new innovation and also to enable greater creativity and free speech -- and the EU Commission basically just tossed it in the garbage because some Hollywood interests think (incorrectly) that internet companies "abuse" the protections.

The EU Commission barely hides the fact that they're doing this to try to protect legacy industries while punishing innovative ones:

The Copyright Directive aims to reinforce the position of right holders to negotiate and be remunerated for the online exploitation of their content on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube or Dailymotion. Such platforms will have an obligation to deploy effective means such as technology to automatically detect songs or audiovisual works which right holders have identified and agreed with the platforms either to authorise or remove.

Newspapers, magazines and other press publications have benefited from the shift from print to digital and online services like social media and news aggregators. It has led to broader audiences, but it has also impacted advertising revenue and made the licensing and enforcement of the rights in these publications increasingly difficult.The Commission proposes to introduce a new related right for publishers, similar to the right that already exists under EU law for film producers, record (phonogram) producers and other players in the creative industries like broadcasters.

The new right recognises the important role press publishers play in investing in and creating quality journalistic content, which is essential for citizens' access to knowledge in our democratic societies. As they will be legally recognised as right holders for the very first time they will be in a better position when they negotiate the use of their content with online services using or enabling access to it, and better able to fight piracy. This approach will give all players a clear legal framework when licensing content for digital uses, and help the development of innovative business models for the benefit of consumers.

The proposal also includes a new "exception" for text and data mining -- which sounds like it could be a good thing, but even it was designed in a manner to "protect" legacy publishers, and which will seriously harm smaller innovators and researchers. The exception is only limited to those engaging in scientific research, meaning that any other kind of research that involves data mining is at risk in the EU. Basically, the EU just gave away that entire important and growing innovative industry. Almost all of the major work in AI and machine learning these days involves data mining, and the EU just told all those companies to go find a new home.

Just looking around at various European-based organizations, they're pretty much agreed that this is a complete disaster. Here's Communia, saying "this is not how you fix copyright."

Today’s proposal buries the hope for a more modern, technologically neutral and flexible copyright framework that the Commission had hinted at in its initial plans for the Digital Single Market. The proposal largely ignores crucial changes to copyright that would have benefitted consumers, users, educators, startups, and cultural heritage institutions. It also abandons the idea of a digital single market that allows all Europeans the same rights to access knowledge and culture. Finally, it completely ignores the importance of protecting and expanding the public domain.

And here's EDRi, saying that the proposal "fails at every level."

The European Commission has proposed a Copyright Directive that could not conceivably be worse. The text that was launched today includes a proposal to potentially filter all uploads to the Internet in Europe. The draft text would destroy users’ rights and legal certainty for European hosting companies. The new Directive’s proposal for a new 20-year “ancillary” copyright for “news” outlets repeats painful mistakes made in Germany and Spain, which hurt publishers and Internet users alike.

“We need a copyright reform to make Europe fit for the 21st century. We now have a proposal that is poison for European’s free speech, poison for European business and poison for creativity”, said Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights. “It could not conceivably be worse.”

And here's EU Parliament member Marietje Schaake, noting how wrong this approach is:

It lacks ambition and instead reads like a defence of old business models. We need a real copyright revolution instead. Publishers might have legitimate concerns about their decreasing revenues, but a retrograde reform of copyright law is not the solution.

So the EU Commission has taken the exact wrong approach. It's one that's almost entirely about looking backwards and "protecting" old ways of doing business, rather than looking forward, and looking at what benefits the public, creators and innovators the most. If this proposal actually gets traction, it will be a complete disaster for the EU innovative community. Hopefully, Europeans speak out, vocally, about what a complete disaster this would be.

Filed Under: ancillary copyright, contentid, copyright, eu, filtering, intermediary liability, link tax, text and data mining