Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/volume_34_issue_1?pg=43
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:56:38+00:00

Document:
. . provide that an intentional violation of criminal law should be an exception to the immunity from civil liability given to internet service providers.”132 The court further stated that such a finding would, “effectively abrogate the immunity”133 and in support of this conclusion cited the civil law case Zeran v. AOL, Inc., where the court “applied § 230 immunity even where Plaintiff alleged giving the Internet service provider actual knowledge of the tortuous content at issue.”134 In other words, despite the clear intent of § 230 to clarify that the immunity provisions have “no effect on criminal law,” courts have still found that the immunity provisions trump federal criminal law.
liability not be imposed, but any case brought under that state law will not stand.
134 Id. (citing Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F. 3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997)).
135 47 U.S.C.A. § 230(e)( 3) (West 2013).
136 S.B. 6251, 62d Leg., Reg. Sess. § 2 (Wa. 2012).
138 Internet Archive was a Plaintiff-Intervenor that filed a Motion Joining in the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1265, 1269 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (granting Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction).

References: v. 
 § 230
 § 230
 v. 
 § 230
 § 2
 v.