Section 230: A Juridical History

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05814v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 15:09:40 GMT
• Title: Section 230: A Juridical History
• Authors: Gregory M. Dickinson,
• Abstract summary: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is the most important law in the history of the internet.<n>The law has not kept pace with the times and is now a source of deep consternation to courts and legislatures.<n>This Article acts as a guidebook to reformers by examining how we got to where we are today.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is the most important law in the history of the internet. It is also one of the most flawed. Under Section 230, online entities are absolutely immune from lawsuits related to content authored by third parties. The law has been essential to the internet's development over the last twenty years, but it has not kept pace with the times and is now a source of deep consternation to courts and legislatures. Lawmakers and legal scholars from across the political spectrum praise the law for what it has done, while criticizing its protection of bad-actor websites and obstruction of internet law reform. Absent from the fray, however, has been the Supreme Court, which has never issued a decision interpreting Section 230. That is poised to change, as the Court now appears determined to peel back decades of lower court case law and interpret the statute afresh to account for the tremendous technological advances of the last two decades. Rather than offer a proposal for reform, of which there are plenty, this Article acts as a guidebook to reformers by examining how we got to where we are today. It identifies those interpretive steps and missteps by which courts constructed an immunity doctrine insufficiently resilient against technological change, with the aim of aiding lawmakers and scholars in crafting an immunity doctrine better situated to accommodate future innovation.

Related papers

• AnnoCaseLaw: A Richly-Annotated Dataset For Benchmarking Explainable Legal Judgment Prediction [56.797874973414636]
  AnnoCaseLaw is a first-of-its-kind dataset of 471 meticulously annotated U.S. Appeals Court negligence cases.<n>Our dataset lays the groundwork for more human-aligned, explainable Legal Judgment Prediction models.<n>Results demonstrate that LJP remains a formidable task, with application of legal precedent proving particularly difficult.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:14:48Z)
• LawPal : A Retrieval Augmented Generation Based System for Enhanced Legal Accessibility in India [0.0]
  Access to legal knowledge in India is often hindered by a lack of awareness, misinformation and limited accessibility to judicial resources.<n>We propose a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)-based legal chatbots powered by vectorstore oriented FAISS.<n>Our model is trained using an extensive dataset comprising legal books, official documentation and the Indian Constitution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T13:45:47Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• Towards Explainability in Legal Outcome Prediction Models [64.00172507827499]
  We argue that precedent is a natural way of facilitating explainability for legal NLP models. By developing a taxonomy of legal precedent, we are able to compare human judges and neural models. We find that while the models learn to predict outcomes reasonably well, their use of precedent is unlike that of human judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T15:15:41Z)
• PILOT: Legal Case Outcome Prediction with Case Law [43.680862577060765]
  We identify two unique challenges in making legal case outcome predictions with case law. First, it is crucial to identify relevant precedent cases that serve as fundamental evidence for judges during decision-making. Second, it is necessary to consider the evolution of legal principles over time, as early cases may adhere to different legal contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T21:18:05Z)
• The Ethics of Automating Legal Actors [58.81546227716182]
  We argue that automating the role of the judge raises difficult ethical challenges, in particular for common law legal systems. Our argument follows from the social role of the judge in actively shaping the law, rather than merely applying it. Even in the case the models could achieve human-level capabilities, there would still be remaining ethical concerns inherent in the automation of the legal process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-01T13:48:46Z)
• An Interpretive Framework for Narrower Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [0.0]
  Almost all courts to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act have construed its ambiguously worded immunity provision broadly. This analysis examines the text and history of Section 230 in light of two strains of pre-Internet vicarious liability defamation doctrine. It concludes that the immunity provision of Section 230, though broad, was not intended to abrogate entirely traditional common law notions of vicarious liability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T14:10:07Z)
• Rebooting Internet Immunity [0.0]
  Article proposes refining online immunity by limiting it to claims that threaten to impose a content-moderation burden on internet defendants. Internet also operates as a platform for the delivery of real-world goods and services. This approach empowers courts to identify culpable actors in the virtual world and treat like conduct alike wherever it occurs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T13:47:47Z)
• Toward Textual Internet Immunity [0.0]
  Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, online entities are immune from lawsuits related to content authored by third parties. This Essay discusses how courts' zealous enforcement of the early internet's free-information ethos gave birth to an expansive immunity doctrine. It explores what a narrower, text-focused doctrine might mean for the tech industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T13:47:30Z)
• SAILER: Structure-aware Pre-trained Language Model for Legal Case Retrieval [75.05173891207214]
  Legal case retrieval plays a core role in the intelligent legal system. Most existing language models have difficulty understanding the long-distance dependencies between different structures. We propose a new Structure-Aware pre-traIned language model for LEgal case Retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-22T10:47:01Z)
• What About the Precedent: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Common Law [64.49276556192073]
  In common law, the outcome of a new case is determined mostly by precedent cases, rather than existing statutes. We are the first to approach this question by comparing two longstanding jurisprudential views. We find that the precedent's arguments share 0.38 nats of information with the case's outcome, whereas precedent's facts only share 0.18 nats of information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-25T11:20:09Z)
• Predicted by Orwell: A discourse on the gradual shift in electronic surveillance law [0.18275108630751835]
  This report looks at human rights legislation in three jurisdictions. It compares and contrasts the protections that are available from illegal search and seizure. It discusses the processes that have led to a gradual yet pervasive weakening of those laws in all three nations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-24T08:33:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.