Section 230
TechFreedom Asks Supreme Court to Review Section 230 Case

June 12, 2020 — Left unchecked, a recent court decision on Section 230 might lead to the internet suffering what a 2008 ruling called “death by ten thousand duck-bites,” according to TechFreedom Senior Fellow Berin Szóka.
“Unless the Supreme Court reverses this decision, schools, libraries, and the developers of tools they use to filter content could all be sued — exactly the opposite of what Congress intended,” Szóka said in a press release.
On Friday, TechFreedom filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Enigma Software v. Malwarebytes.
Most litigation surrounding Section 230 deals with Section(c)(1), which infamously protects online platforms from being treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.
But the Enigma case instead focuses on the next portion of the statute. Section(c)(2) shields providers of interactive computer services who restrict access to material considered in some way objectionable by either the provider or the user.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling would open the door for costly and time-consuming litigation over the potential of filtering tools to be used for anti-competitive purposes, TechFreedom said.
“The near-absence of litigation about (c)(2)(B) simply proves how vital this provision has been,” Szóka argued. “For nearly a quarter of a century, this provision has done precisely what Congress declared to be a core purpose of Section 230: ‘to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools.’”
Although Enigma v. Malwarebytes deals with malware vendors, Szóka warned that the decision would set a precedent that could impact parental controls and other tools used to filter online content.
“A single lawsuit could bankrupt the developers of tools that allow users to block ads or remove content they don’t want to see from their social media feeds,” he said.
Szóka claimed that the ruling was based on a misunderstanding of the statute in question.
“The court worried that the law might protect ‘covert filtering’ of content unless the court added an implied exception for ‘anticompetitive animus,’” he said. “But that immunity applies only to providing filtering tools to others so that they can decide whether to ‘restrict access’ to content.”
Because the users of Malwarebytes and similar software are the ones with ultimate control over filtering, it makes no sense to allow the companies to be sued, Szóka said.
“The Enigma decision replaces legal clarity with vast uncertainty that will discourage the development of the very tools Congress wanted to flourish,” Szóka concluded. “We’re already starting to see such litigation in California; if it continues there, the tech capital of the planet, it could reshape the Internet for all Americans.”
Section 230
Supporters of Section 230 Agreed About Concerns, But Counterarguments Dominated Panel Discussion

June 12, 2020 — Left unchecked, a recent court decision on Section 230 might lead to the internet suffering what a 2008 ruling called “death by ten thousand duck-bites,” according to TechFreedom Senior Fellow Berin Szóka.
“Unless the Supreme Court reverses this decision, schools, libraries, and the developers of tools they use to filter content could all be sued — exactly the opposite of what Congress intended,” Szóka said in a press release.
On Friday, TechFreedom filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Enigma Software v. Malwarebytes.
Most litigation surrounding Section 230 deals with Section(c)(1), which infamously protects online platforms from being treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.
But the Enigma case instead focuses on the next portion of the statute. Section(c)(2) shields providers of interactive computer services who restrict access to material considered in some way objectionable by either the provider or the user.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling would open the door for costly and time-consuming litigation over the potential of filtering tools to be used for anti-competitive purposes, TechFreedom said.
“The near-absence of litigation about (c)(2)(B) simply proves how vital this provision has been,” Szóka argued. “For nearly a quarter of a century, this provision has done precisely what Congress declared to be a core purpose of Section 230: ‘to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools.’”
Although Enigma v. Malwarebytes deals with malware vendors, Szóka warned that the decision would set a precedent that could impact parental controls and other tools used to filter online content.
“A single lawsuit could bankrupt the developers of tools that allow users to block ads or remove content they don’t want to see from their social media feeds,” he said.
Szóka claimed that the ruling was based on a misunderstanding of the statute in question.
“The court worried that the law might protect ‘covert filtering’ of content unless the court added an implied exception for ‘anticompetitive animus,’” he said. “But that immunity applies only to providing filtering tools to others so that they can decide whether to ‘restrict access’ to content.”
Because the users of Malwarebytes and similar software are the ones with ultimate control over filtering, it makes no sense to allow the companies to be sued, Szóka said.
“The Enigma decision replaces legal clarity with vast uncertainty that will discourage the development of the very tools Congress wanted to flourish,” Szóka concluded. “We’re already starting to see such litigation in California; if it continues there, the tech capital of the planet, it could reshape the Internet for all Americans.”
Congress
Former FCC Commissioners Reflect on Changes Since 1996 Telecommunications Act

June 12, 2020 — Left unchecked, a recent court decision on Section 230 might lead to the internet suffering what a 2008 ruling called “death by ten thousand duck-bites,” according to TechFreedom Senior Fellow Berin Szóka.
“Unless the Supreme Court reverses this decision, schools, libraries, and the developers of tools they use to filter content could all be sued — exactly the opposite of what Congress intended,” Szóka said in a press release.
On Friday, TechFreedom filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Enigma Software v. Malwarebytes.
Most litigation surrounding Section 230 deals with Section(c)(1), which infamously protects online platforms from being treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.
But the Enigma case instead focuses on the next portion of the statute. Section(c)(2) shields providers of interactive computer services who restrict access to material considered in some way objectionable by either the provider or the user.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling would open the door for costly and time-consuming litigation over the potential of filtering tools to be used for anti-competitive purposes, TechFreedom said.
“The near-absence of litigation about (c)(2)(B) simply proves how vital this provision has been,” Szóka argued. “For nearly a quarter of a century, this provision has done precisely what Congress declared to be a core purpose of Section 230: ‘to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools.’”
Although Enigma v. Malwarebytes deals with malware vendors, Szóka warned that the decision would set a precedent that could impact parental controls and other tools used to filter online content.
“A single lawsuit could bankrupt the developers of tools that allow users to block ads or remove content they don’t want to see from their social media feeds,” he said.
Szóka claimed that the ruling was based on a misunderstanding of the statute in question.
“The court worried that the law might protect ‘covert filtering’ of content unless the court added an implied exception for ‘anticompetitive animus,’” he said. “But that immunity applies only to providing filtering tools to others so that they can decide whether to ‘restrict access’ to content.”
Because the users of Malwarebytes and similar software are the ones with ultimate control over filtering, it makes no sense to allow the companies to be sued, Szóka said.
“The Enigma decision replaces legal clarity with vast uncertainty that will discourage the development of the very tools Congress wanted to flourish,” Szóka concluded. “We’re already starting to see such litigation in California; if it continues there, the tech capital of the planet, it could reshape the Internet for all Americans.”
Section 230
Tread Carefully if Section 230 is to Be Changed, Experts Say at INCOMPAS Event

June 12, 2020 — Left unchecked, a recent court decision on Section 230 might lead to the internet suffering what a 2008 ruling called “death by ten thousand duck-bites,” according to TechFreedom Senior Fellow Berin Szóka.
“Unless the Supreme Court reverses this decision, schools, libraries, and the developers of tools they use to filter content could all be sued — exactly the opposite of what Congress intended,” Szóka said in a press release.
On Friday, TechFreedom filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Enigma Software v. Malwarebytes.
Most litigation surrounding Section 230 deals with Section(c)(1), which infamously protects online platforms from being treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.
But the Enigma case instead focuses on the next portion of the statute. Section(c)(2) shields providers of interactive computer services who restrict access to material considered in some way objectionable by either the provider or the user.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling would open the door for costly and time-consuming litigation over the potential of filtering tools to be used for anti-competitive purposes, TechFreedom said.
“The near-absence of litigation about (c)(2)(B) simply proves how vital this provision has been,” Szóka argued. “For nearly a quarter of a century, this provision has done precisely what Congress declared to be a core purpose of Section 230: ‘to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools.’”
Although Enigma v. Malwarebytes deals with malware vendors, Szóka warned that the decision would set a precedent that could impact parental controls and other tools used to filter online content.
“A single lawsuit could bankrupt the developers of tools that allow users to block ads or remove content they don’t want to see from their social media feeds,” he said.
Szóka claimed that the ruling was based on a misunderstanding of the statute in question.
“The court worried that the law might protect ‘covert filtering’ of content unless the court added an implied exception for ‘anticompetitive animus,’” he said. “But that immunity applies only to providing filtering tools to others so that they can decide whether to ‘restrict access’ to content.”
Because the users of Malwarebytes and similar software are the ones with ultimate control over filtering, it makes no sense to allow the companies to be sued, Szóka said.
“The Enigma decision replaces legal clarity with vast uncertainty that will discourage the development of the very tools Congress wanted to flourish,” Szóka concluded. “We’re already starting to see such litigation in California; if it continues there, the tech capital of the planet, it could reshape the Internet for all Americans.”
-
Artificial Intelligence3 months ago
U.S. Special Operations Command Employs AI and Machine Learning to Improve Operations
-
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
Benton on Middle Mile Open Access Networks, CENIC Fiber Route in California, Investors Buying Bitcoin
-
Section 2304 months ago
President Trump’s FCC Nominee Grilled on Section 230 During Senate Confirmation Hearing
-
Artificial Intelligence2 months ago
Artificial Intelligence Aims to Enhance Human Capabilities, But Only With Caution and Safeguards
-
Broadband Roundup3 months ago
Trump Signs Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence, How Not to Wreck the FCC, Broadband Performance in Europe
-
5G4 months ago
5G Stands to Impact Industry Before Consumers, Says Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg
-
Fiber2 months ago
Smaller Internet Providers Were Instrumental to Fiber Deployment in 2020, Says Fiber Broadband Association
-
#broadbandlive3 months ago
Broadband Breakfast Live Online Event Series on ‘Tools for Broadband Deployment’ on Enhancing Rural America