For years, litigation over 47 U.S. Code § 230 — known better as Section 230 — acquired a Groundhog Day–esque quality. Despite the law’s plain language, which absolves online platforms of most civil liability for the speech of third-party users, myriad plaintiffs have brought suits seeking to contort its meaning. Judges have almost exclusively turned away these efforts and maintained the Section 230’s integrity. The cycle went thus: Frivolous lawfare would beget sensible, textualist rebuffs — and the cycle would continue.
Read Full Article »
