Source: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/08/twitter-gets-powerful-win-in-must-carry-lawsuit-taylor-v-twitter.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:15:21+00:00

Document:
This is one of several lawsuits brought by disseminators of anti-social content (in this case, white supremacist content) seeking to prevent social media providers from cutting them off. In June, the lower court surprisingly rejected Twitter’s dismissal motion for the unfair competition claim. I didn’t blog that ruling because it clearly wasn’t the final word (plus, it was just a hearing transcript). Twitter sought a writ of mandate from the appeals court–an extraordinary request which courts are reluctant to grant. In another surprise twist, yesterday the appeals court granted Twitter’s request (without even inviting the plaintiff’s response) and told the lower court to dismiss the case unless it can better justify its ruling. I doubt the lower court can convince the appellate court to reverse this opinion, so this appellate ruling almost likely will force a plaintiff appeal.
The court correctly treats this as an easy Section 230 case. Consistent with the modern trend post-Sikhs for Justice v. Facebook, the court treats users’ posts as third party content to Twitter, so 230(c)(1) applies instead of 230(c)(2).
The plaintiffs argued that the unfair competition claim is based on Twitter’s marketing collateral. The court responds that Section 230 protects publishing third party content regardless of how plaintiffs plead the claim. “Here, the duties real parties allege Twitter violated derive from its status or conduct as publisher because petitioner’s decision to suspend real parties’ accounts constitutes publishing activity” (cite to Cohen v. Facebook and Fields v. Twitter, with a backup cite to Hassell v. Bird).
This ruling has several powerful implications. First, it is a reminder that Section 230 sometimes applies to an Internet service’s marketing claims that relate to their publication of third party content–even where the defendant allegedly violated its own promises. This is not an unprecedented outcome (see, e.g., Milo v. Martin), but it may be counter-intuitive. Second, it highlights how Section 230 cuts across all claims, so the plaintiff’s pleading decisions shouldn’t matter. Third, this is the first opinion I’ve seen citing the California Supreme Court’s Hassell v. Bird ruling, and the court treated it as a strong endorsement of Section 230 despite the murkiness of the four opinions.
I’ll remind you of the high stakes of this and similar lawsuits: the plaintiffs seek to eliminate Twitter’s discretion to shut down purveyors of anti-social content, and other trolls, on its site. If Twitter and other social media providers are defenseless against the trolls, their services will become unusable overnight. So this lawsuit and related suits are existential battles for the social media defendants and all of us who currently enjoy those services. And please please please don’t buy into the trope that these suits seek to vindicate users’ “free speech” rights. Instead, these lawsuits seek to negate the social media providers’ First Amendment-protected Freedom of the Press, so they actually reflect deeply censorious agendas. For more, see my essay, Of Course the First Amendment Protects Google and Facebook (and It’s Not a Close Question).
We certainly regret that the Court of Appeals did not give us the opportunity to respond to Twitter’s petition—and the amicus brief from Google, Snap, Yelp et al. Certainly, given the forces arrayed against our client, that would seem a reasonable approach.
The Court of Appeals action stands in direct contradiction to established precedent as found in cases such as Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc., 228 Cal.App.4th 294 (2014). And, we are confident that once we are given the chance for a full and fair hearing, the opinion of the Superior Court will be upheld.
* What Would a Government-Operated Search Engine Look Like in the US?
Section 230 means you can’t trust internet advertising because the platforms that carry it can’t be sued. It leaves people defenseless against libel from anonymous sources (like anonymous remailers or judgment-proof defendants across the world). The case Paul v. Davis from 1976 actually came clkose to establishing reputation as a constitutional right but said there was no constitutional harm to a local “flyering” of an individual by police. In a Google world, that harm would be found. The Supreme Court has still yet to affirm Section 230, which suggests they want it in place until some point in the future when they will knock it down.
Section 230 may be the law of the land, but it places the rights of internet companies over the reputations of individuals. It leads to “reputation blackmail” from foreign sources, and allows people to weaponize the internet in a manner that chills free speech by threat of retaliation against which people are defenseless. Some lawyers even target litigious individuals for third-party defamation by following them around online, waiting for them to have a conflict, linking the other side to the lies, knowing they will be repeated, then rushing in to defend “free speech” while collecting fees either from the wealthy pawn or crowdsourcing. Other countries do not recognize 230 and neither should the US. A small cadre of vocal attorneys has commandeered the issue. As for whther any law firm should be allowed 501(c)(3) status, that’s another issue. Free speech isn’t that free when tax breaks and student loan forgiveness are factored in.
If people want to place the rights of internet companies over my rights, that’s fine with me but they shouldn’t expect me to want to interact with them. They’ll think “no big loss” and then one day they’ll be targeted if they step out of line or tick off even one individual with an axe to grind. Even Ron Wyden has come to question 230’s validity. It will go down in history as one of the worst laws ever enacted.
We might as well just abolish all defamation law so that the targets of defamation can respond in kind without fear of being sued.
I appreciate that the clerk of the First District is called Charles Johnson. Seems appropriate.
Ummm. How do you figure YOUR free speech is limited if you were to go to ANOTHER user’s page and complain to twitter, facebook, youtube to get them banned for what they posted on their page? You are like a virtual antifa clown. Always showing up at other people’s events to shut them down over things you don’t agree with instead of just easily avoiding it. Also, you don’t know what a troll is.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.