DOCSLIB.ORG

Free Speech Savior Or Shield for Scoundrels: an Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Free Speech Savior Or Shield for Scoundrels: an Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 43 Number 2 Article 1 1-1-2010 Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act David S. Ardia Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David S. Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 373 (2010). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol43/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FREE SPEECH SAVIOR OR SHIELD FOR SCOUNDRELS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF INTERMEDIARY IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT David S. Ardia * In the thirteen years since its enactment, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has become one of the most important statutes impacting online speech, as well as one of the most intensely criticized. In deceptively simple language, its provisions sweep away the common law's distinction between publisher and distributor liability, granting operators of Web sites and other interactive computer services broad protectionfrom claims based on the speech of third parties. Section 230 is of critical importance because virtually all speech that occurs on the Internet is facilitated by private intermediaries that have a fragile commitment to the speech they facilitate. This Article presents the first empirical study of the section 230 case law. It begins by providing a doctrinal overview of common law liabilityfor intermediaries,both online and offline, and describes how section 230 modifies these doctrinal approaches.It then systematically analyzes the 184 decisions courts have issued since the statute's enactment. The Article also examines how courts have applied section 230, finding that judges have been haphazard in their approach to its application. The Article closes by discussing the study's findings and by offering some insights into how plaintiffs and defendants have fared under section 230. While section 230 has largely protected * Resident Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. As with any project that stretches over several years, a number of people provided invaluable assistance and feedback, including Sam Bayard, Rob Fais, Eric Goldman, Eszter Hargittai, Lewis Hyde, Phil Malone, John Palfrey, Mary-Rose Papandrea, Carolina Rossini, Wendy Seltzer, Jonathan Zittrain, and members of the Yale-Harvard-MIT Cyberscholars Working Group. I also received help from an exceptional group of research assistants: Lee Baker, Reed Bienvenu, Courtney French, Olivia Jennings, Rachel Miller-Ziegler, David O'Brien, Amanda Rice, Natalie Senst, and Stefani Wittenauer. Funding for the initial collection of cases was provided by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. 374 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LA WREVIEW [Vol. 43:373 intermediariesfrom liabilityfor third-party speech, it has not been the free pass many of its proponents claim and its critics lament. More than a third of the claims at issue in the cases survived a section 230 defense. Even in cases where the court dismissed the claims, intermediaries bore liability in the form of litigation costs, and it took courts, on average, nearly a year to issue decisions addressing an intermediary'sdefense under section 230. Winter 2010] COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT§ 230 375 TABLE OF CONTENTS IN TRODU CTION ................................................................................. 377 I. B ACKGROUND .............................................................................. 382 A. The Pervasiveness of Private Intermediaries ................... 385 B. Intermediary Control over Third-Party Speech ............... 389 II. DOCTRINAL OVERVIEW ............................................................... 392 A. Overview of Common Law Liability for Interm ediaries .................................................................. 393 1. Primary Speaker Liability .......................................... 394 2. Publisher Liability ...................................................... 397 3. Distributor Liability ................................................... 397 4. Conduit Liability ........................................................ 398 B. First Amendment Limitations on Intermediary L iab ility ........................................................................... 40 1 C. The Early Internet Speech Cases ..................................... 406 D. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 .................... 409 1. Legislative History of Section 230 ............................ 409 2. Judicial Application of Section 230 ........................... 411 III. SUMMARY STATISTICS ............................................................... 412 A. Study Methodology ......................................................... 413 B. Distribution of Decisions ................................................. 415 1. Distribution by Year and Jurisdiction ........................ 415 2. Distribution by Venue ................................................ 421 3. Distribution by Legal Claim ...................................... 427 4. Distribution by Medium of Publication and Content Type ............................................................. 430 5. Distribution by Intermediary Role ............................. 432 C . W in R ates ......................................................................... 434 D. Appeal, Affirmance, and Reversal Rates ......................... 442 IV. CONTENT ANALYSIS .................................................................. 446 A. Areas of Judicial Inquiry ................................................. 446 1. Interactive Computer Services Covered .................... 447 2. Legal Claims Covered ................................................ 450 3. Information Content Providers Covered .................... 454 4. Nature of the Intermediary's Relationship with the Content's Source ....................................................... 457 376 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LA WREVIEW [Vol. 43:373 5. Nature of the Intermediary's Interaction with the Content ...................................................................... 460 6. Nature of the Intermediary's Relationship with the Plaintiff or Public ...................................................... 464 B. Correlation and Regression Analyses .............................. 468 1. Expected Findings ...................................................... 474 2. Unexpected Findings ................................................. 474 V. DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 475 A. Viability of Claims Under Common Law Liability Theories........................................................................... 475 B. Assessing Section 230's Impact on Defendants .............. 480 1. The Proper Timing of a Section 230 Defense ............ 482 2. Imposition of Sanctions and Attorneys' Fees ............ 485 C. Assessing Section 230's Impact on Plaintiffs .................. 486 1. Finding and Suing the Source .................................... 486 2. Content Rem oval ....................................................... 489 CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 492 APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 495 I. M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 495 A. Target Population ............................................................. 495 B. Sample Selection .............................................................. 495 C. Coding .............................................................................. 497 D. Case and Party Research .................................................. 497 1. Third Party Sued in Another Case ............................. 498 2. Third-Party Source Liability ...................................... 498 3. Content Available Online .......................................... 498 4. Anonymous Online Content ...................................... 498 5. Case Disposition ........................................................ 499 6. Verdict or Settlem ent Am ount ................................... 499 7. Appeal Status ............................................................. 499 E. Analysis ............................................................................ 499 II. ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................ 500 Winter 2010] COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT § 230 INTRODUCTION What many consider the largest public space in human history is not public at all. Paradoxically, the Internet-a content-agnostic communication network available to anyone with access to a computer-contains no true "public forum."1 It embraces no public commons upon which a citizen is free to stand on his or her virtual soapbox and regale the public.2 It is layered on privately owned Web sites, privately owned servers, privately owned routers, and privately owned backbones.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Law Made Silicon Valley
    Emory Law Journal Volume 63 Issue 3 2014 How Law Made Silicon Valley Anupam Chander Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj Recommended Citation Anupam Chander, How Law Made Silicon Valley, 63 Emory L. J. 639 (2014). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol63/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory Law Journal by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHANDER GALLEYSPROOFS2 2/17/2014 9:02 AM HOW LAW MADE SILICON VALLEY Anupam Chander* ABSTRACT Explanations for the success of Silicon Valley focus on the confluence of capital and education. In this Article, I put forward a new explanation, one that better elucidates the rise of Silicon Valley as a global trader. Just as nineteenth-century American judges altered the common law in order to subsidize industrial development, American judges and legislators altered the law at the turn of the Millennium to promote the development of Internet enterprise. Europe and Asia, by contrast, imposed strict intermediary liability regimes, inflexible intellectual property rules, and strong privacy constraints, impeding local Internet entrepreneurs. This study challenges the conventional wisdom that holds that strong intellectual property rights undergird innovation. While American law favored both commerce and speech enabled by this new medium, European and Asian jurisdictions attended more to the risks to intellectual property rights holders and, to a lesser extent, ordinary individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • A Proposed Framework for Kansas District Courts' Discretion on A
    A Proposed Framework for Kansas District Courts’ Discretion on a Motion to Reconsider a Suppression Ruling Andrew Kershen* “A motion to [the court’s] discretion is a motion, not to its inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles.” —Chief Justice John Marshall1 I. INTRODUCTION On October 6, 2008, Phillip Martin was found shot to death in his kitchen.2 The police suspected a drug-related robbery and focused their investigation on seventeen-year-old Kelvin H. Gibson, Jr.3 The police located Gibson and escorted him to the police station, where he was interviewed.4 Gibson confessed to killing Martin, claiming that others had threatened him with death if he did not shoot.5 The police stopped the interview at that point and administered the Miranda warnings to Gibson, which he acknowledged and waived in writing.6 The interview resumed and continued for several hours.7 Gibson gave a second interview two days later, again after being read his Miranda rights and * J.D. Candidate 2017, University of Kansas; B.Sc. Chemistry 1998, University of Oklahoma. I thank Judge Nancy Parrish and Judge Cheryl Rios who welcomed me into their courtrooms during the summer of 2015. This Comment would not exist without that experience. I thank my faculty reader, Professor Elizabeth Cateforis, for her time and effort both on paper and in person. Her thoughtful criticism improved this Comment enormously by challenging me to make obvious to the reader what seemed obvious to me. I also thank my student editor, Ashley Akers, for her comments on structure, word choice, and consistency, and I thank the Kansas Law Review editorial staff for their careful reading in preparation of publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Supreme Court Rules 20 Through 24 and Amended Supreme Court Rule 111
    Proposed Supreme Court Rules 20 through 24 and Amended Supreme Court Rule 111 The Kansas Supreme Court is accepting public comment on rules that address the Kansas eCourt project to develop a centralized case management system for Kansas courts. Five new rules are proposed and they are referred to collectively as the Kansas eCourt Rules: Rule 20 is a Prefatory Rule explaining the purpose for developing a centralized case management system; Rule 21 defines terms used in the eCourt Rules; Rule 22 establishes the framework for providing public access to electronic case records; Rule 23 discusses requirements for efiling documents in Kansas district courts; Rule 24 describes protections afforded personally identifiable information. The Supreme Court is also accepting comment on amendments Rule 111, which governs the physical characteristics of pleadings and other documents. Because Rule 111 is an existing rule, changes are shown by underlining new content and using strikethrough to show deleted content. Comments may be made by email to [email protected] until 5 p.m. Monday, May 13, 2019. The subject line must read "eCourt Rules." ______________________________________________________________________________ RULES RELATING TO KANSAS ECOURT Rule 20 PREFATORY RULE (a) Kansas eCourt Rules. This set of rules when referred to as a whole will be identified as the Kansas eCourt Rules. (b) Purpose. The Kansas Supreme Court has developed a centralized case management system that maintains case records of the Kansas judicial branch. The case management system provides efficient, effective court operations and increases access to justice for the people of Kansas. This set of rules standardizes the processing of case filings to provide consistent user experience and allow for workshare among judicial branch employees.
    [Show full text]
  • TOO KELLER Too Keller Is a Founder of Keller Macaluso and Leads the Firm’S Litigation and Risk Management Groups
    TOO KELLER Too Keller is a founder of Keller Macaluso and leads the firm’s litigation and risk management groups. Mr. Keller's practice centers primarily in business and commercial litigation, including a focus on real estate and defense of commercial corporate matters. Mr. Keller earned both his undergraduate and juris doctorate degrees from the University of Notre Dame in 1995 and 1998. Prior to founding Keller Macaluso, Mr. Keller practiced at a large Indianapolis-based law firm from 1998 to 2010. Mr. Keller’s practice encompasses virtually every aspect of litigation. He represents national and regional passenger carriers, commercial carriers and insurance companies in state and federal courts, focusing on high-dollar transportation cases, including charges of wrongful death and paralysis. Mr. Keller has on-the-ground experience working with investigators, accident reconstructionists and other key transportation consultants immediately following accidents. His real estate practice includes representing commercial landlords in a wide variety of matters, including tenant evictions, in both state and federal court. He has handled in excess of 500 commercial evictions for national and local landlords and represents tenants in solving lease related issues with landlords. Mr. Keller also practices before a variety of the administrative agencies in Indiana, including the CONTACT INFORMATION Indiana Department of Insurance, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire Arms, the Phone: 317 660 3402 Marion County Environmental Court, the Indiana Department of Insurance, the Fax: 317 660 3401 Indiana Psychology Board, and the Indiana Fire Prevention and Building Safety Email: [email protected] Commission. With more than 20 years of practice, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Register.Com, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee V. Verio, Inc., Defendant-Appellant
    Page 1 LEXSEE 356 F.3D 393 REGISTER.COM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VERIO, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 00-9596 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 356 F.3d 393; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1074; 69 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1545 January 21, 2001, Argued January 23, 2004, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal by defendant Verio, Inc. from preliminary injunction granted by the United OPINION BY: LEVAL States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jones, J.) on motion of plaintiff Register.com, OPINION: [*395] LEVAL, Circuit Judge: Inc., a registrar of Internet domain names. The order en- Defendant, Verio, Inc. ("Verio") appeals from an or- joined the defendant from using the plaintiff's mark in der of the United States District Court for the Southern communications with prospective customers, accessing District of New York (Barbara S. Jones, J.) granting the plaintiff's computers by use of software programs per- motion of plaintiff Register.com, Inc. ("Register") for a forming multiple automated, successive queries, and preliminary injunction. The court's order enjoined Verio using contact information relating to recent registrants of from (1) using Register's trademarks; (2) representing or Internet domain names ("WHOIS information") obtained otherwise suggesting to third parties that Verio's services from plaintiff's computers for mass solicitation. Regis- have the sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of Regis- ter.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238, 2000 ter; (3) accessing Register's computers by use of auto- U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18846 (S.D.N.Y., 2000) mated software programs performing multiple successive queries; and (4) using data obtained from Register's da- DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Activists from Abusive Litigation: Slapps in the Global
    PROTECTING ACTIVISTS FROM ABUSIVE LITIGATION SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH AND HOW TO RESPOND SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH Features and Policy Responses Author: Nikhil Dutta, Global Programs Legal Advisor, ICNL, [email protected]. Our thanks go to the following colleagues and partners for valuable discussions and input on this report: Abby Henderson; Charlie Holt; Christen Dobson; Ginna Anderson; Golda Benjamin; Lady Nancy Zuluaga Jaramillo; Zamira Djabarova; the Cambodian Center for Human Rights; iProbono; and SEEDS for Legal Initiatives. Published in July 2020 by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL NORTH 2 III. SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 4 A. Instances of Reported SLAPPs in the South 4 i. Thailand 5 ii. India 7 iii. Philippines 10 iv. South Africa 12 v. Other Instances of Reported SLAPPS in the South 13 B. Features of Reported SLAPPs in the South 15 IV. POLICY RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL NORTH 19 A. Enacting Protections for Public Participation 19 B. Creating Expedited Dismissal Procedures for SLAPPs 20 C. Endowing Courts with Supplemental Authorities to Manage SLAPPs 23 D. Permitting Recovery of Costs by SLAPP Targets 24 E. Authorizing Government Intervention in SLAPPs 25 F. Establishing Public Funds to Support SLAPP Defense 25 G. Imposing Compensatory and Punitive Damages on SLAPP Filers 25 H. Levying Penalties on SLAPP Filers 26 I. Reforming SLAPP Causes of Action 27 V. POLICY RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 27 A. Thailand 28 B. Philippines 30 C. Indonesia 33 VI. DEVISING FUTURE RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 33 REFERENCES 37 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Slapped: a Tool for Activists
    Published May 2014 SLAPPed: A Tool for Activists The right to speak your mind and fight for what you believe in without – or in spite of – reprisal, is one of our nation’s oldest and dearest principles. But for just as long, there have been powerful forces that prefer it when people simply stay silent. Whether the year is 2014 or 1814, these forces have always proved willing to use whatever tools they can muster to silence their critics. Often, they turn to the legal system, where their superior resources can help them make life very difficult for those who dare to challenge them. As these legal tactics have evolved, they have been a given a name. Today we call them Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits. Their goal is not victory in the courtroom. It’s much simpler than that. Their goal is to send this very clear message: “Exercise your First Amendment rights at your own peril.” This message represents the polar opposite of everything the American Civil Liberties Union stands for. We have little concern for the ever-evolving partisan disagreements and economic realities that prompt these SLAPP suits. Our stake in this issue is much larger. Our court system should be a place where we are all treated equally in the eyes of the law. It should not be a place where the powerful use their abundance of resources to enact revenge on those who see the world through different eyes. What future is there for freedom of speech if we allow those who speak out to be bled dry and turned into an example of what happens when you stand up to speak your mind? 1 SLAPP suits pervert our legal system by turning it into a war of attrition, a place where who is right and who is wrong does not matter nearly as much as who has the most resources.
    [Show full text]
  • International Annual Report 2020 Defending Freedom of Expression and Information Around the World International Women’S Day Protest in Mexico City on 8 March 2020
    International Annual Report 2020 Defending Freedom of Expression and Information around the World International Women’s Day protest in Mexico City on 8 March 2020. Among other demands, protesters called for justice for the more than 10 women murdered daily in Mexico and the decriminalisation of abortion. (Photo: ARTICLE 19 Mexico & Central America) 2 ARTICLE 19 Contents Civic Space Digital 6 From the Executive Director: 37 Huge step forward for the right 43 Artificial intelligence: A Global Quinn McKew to protest worldwide South perspective 7 From the Chair of the Board: 39 Combating “hate speech” 43 Working with dating apps Paddy Coulter worldwide to protect the LGBTQI+ community 8 Viral lies: Misinformation 40 Holistic protection of journalists and COVID-19 and civil society in Kenya, 45 Lawsuit against facial Malawi, and Myanmar recognition in São Paulo 9 A global response to a subway global crisis 41 Research uniting civil society in the Middle East and North 46 Assessing the human rights 12 “It’s all about prioritising Africa impacts of Internet registries wellbeing”: Supporting our staff through the pandemic 13 Reporting on the pandemic 14 Global Expression Report 2019/2020: Most people now live in a freedom of expression crisis 16 Researching rights 18 Law and policy 22 International advocacy 28 Freedom of expression: A tool to achieve women’s equality 32 Campaign updates 34 Building capacity, enhancing safety: Training and workshops International Women’s Day protest in Hundreds of people protest on 8 February Supporter of Net Neutrality Lance Brown Mexico City on 8 March 2020. Among other 2020 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in repudiation of Eyes protests the Federal Communications demands, protesters called for justice for gender violence and in memory of those Commission’s decision to repeal the the more than 10 women murdered daily who died because they were women.
    [Show full text]
  • Douglas County Register of Deeds Kansas
    Douglas County Register Of Deeds Kansas Compressible Yehudi redating her tawney so specially that Alford mountaineers very eighth. Squeezable Romeo always inscribing his mailcoaches if Jeffery is unattended or pollutes propitiously. Urinary and dexter Freeman still evaginating his puerility woundingly. Funding has to kansas deeds of douglas county kansas register of kansas register of. This county kansas counties that all law enforcement officer as well as such notary seal and douglas county register of oklahoma. Book of deeds of douglas county deeds kansas register of deeds are anticipated in its county register of? These fields must match! When that happens, you could bike all came way to St. View Douglas County information about obtaining marriage licenses and marriage certificates including fee, time period a Judge performed ceremonies. Learn more difficult for birth, nebraska probation without some of deeds of douglas county register of each state, trophy elk county, you believe some. These kansas county registered user id handy. The register of the other senators from. It is douglas county register of the national recreation areas, as compared to territorial manuscripts from. What right away kaiparowits plateau and register of deeds registered offenders, please contact info about the public access is only benefits based units. Native russian tribe, the brands of Cherokee Nation Businesses are a staple item the advice industry, leaders in federal contracting solutions, as dilute as drivers of community development, economic impact and cultural preservation. Beacon. This center would treat the thousands of visitors that flock to the park each year, what would report the Government millions in taxpayer dollars.
    [Show full text]
  • © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works. 1 FREE SPEECH in the MODERN AGE, 31 Fordham Intell
    FREE SPEECH IN THE MODERN AGE, 31 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 978 31 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 978 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Summer, 2021 Symposium Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journala1 Copyright © 2021 by Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal FREE SPEECH IN THE MODERN AGE I. Banned Books: Prepublication Review in the Intelligence Community 978 II. Hitting Back: SLAPP Suits & Anti-SLAPP Statutes 984 III. Keynote Speech: Public Square 2.0: Free Speech on the Internet 988 IV. Celebrity Paradox: Copyright, Social Media & Paparazzi Photography 992 I. Banned Books: Prepublication Review in the Intelligence Community Moderated by Abner S. Greene,1 the Banned Books: Prepublication Review in the Intelligence Community Panel discussed the tension between national intelligence agencies' prepublication review process and employees' First Amendment interests related to *979 classified information. Particularly, this panel focused on how nondisclosure agreements (“NDAs”) signed by current or former national intelligence employees affected the publication of books written by high-profile government officials. For example, memoirs written by former U.S. National Security Advisor John R. Bolton2 and former CIA employee Edward Snowden3 not only drew public attention, but also prompted lawsuits by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging violations of NDAs.4 These government NDAs require current and former national intelligence employees to submit any public statements or publications to the federal government for review prior to publication. The panel also discussed how to balance national security interests and the public's access to information. Panelists included Dr. Christopher E.
    [Show full text]
  • A SLAPP in the Facebook: Assessing the Impact of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation on Social Networks, Blogs and Consumer Gripe Sites
    DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 21 Issue 2 Spring 2011 Article 2 A SLAPP in the Facebook: Assessing the Impact of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation on Social Networks, Blogs and Consumer Gripe Sites Robert D. Richards Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip Recommended Citation Robert D. Richards, A SLAPP in the Facebook: Assessing the Impact of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation on Social Networks, Blogs and Consumer Gripe Sites, 21 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 221 (2011) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip/vol21/iss2/2 This Lead Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Richards: A SLAPP in the Facebook: Assessing the Impact of Strategic Lawsui A SLAPP IN THE FACEBOOK: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON SOCIAL NETWORKS, BLOGS AND CONSUMER GRIPE SITES Robert D. Richards' I. INTRODUCTION Until April 5, 2010, Justin Kurtz was just another college student with an axe to grind and a Facebook page on which to grind it.2 On that spring day, however, he became the target of a $750,000 lawsuit by a towing company he claims damaged his car and illegally removed a parking decal, resulting in a $118 fee.' Rather than airing his complaints in court or to a consumer protection agency, Kurtz posted his grievances on a Facebook group he created called "Kalamazoo Residents Against T & J Towing."' Within two days, the Western Michigan University student had attracted 800 online followers, some of whom weighed in with "comments about their own maddening experiences with 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Enron Corporation Managing Energy and Information
    United States of America Securities Utilities Enron Corporation Managing energy and information 23 May 2000 Andre Meade +1 212 703 4464 andre_meade@ cbcm.com Bret Connor +1 212 703 4458 bret_connor@ cbcm.com adadkdXda Contents 1. Executive summary 1 2. Valuation Results 2 3. Introduction to Enron 4 4. Enron Wholesale Energy 7 5. Enron Energy Services 23 6. Gas Pipelines 28 7. Enron Broadband Services 33 8. Other businesses 43 9. Group level results 46 10. Valuation 49 Appendix 1: Enron wholesale assets 52 Appendix 2: Merchant plant valuation 59 Appendix 3: Global regions 63 Global Utilities Team /DNLV$WKDQDVLRX *HUDLQW$QGHUVRQ CrhqsVvyvvrSrrh pu VvyvvrHh xrvt6hy ByihyVvyvvr @ rhVvyvvr (##!&%$"&"$ (##!&%$"&'' *Qhqryhxvhuhhv5pr ihxvip *Br hvhqr 5pr ihxvip 0DUWLQ%URXJK (ULF*UDEHU/RSH] @ rhVvyvvr6hy(L Ghv6r vphVvyvvr6hy*E / V-@yrp vpv 6 trvh7 hvy8uvyr (##!&%$"&$' ( ! !&"###' *Hh vi tu5pr ihxp *r vpft hir 5pipp &KULV5RJHUV 3DXO5RJHUV @ rhVvyvvr6hy @ rhVvyvvr6hy 6 vh7rytvBr hCth DhyQ thyThv (##!&%$"&"' (##!&%$"&"% *8u v tr 5pr ihxvip *Qhy tr 5pr ihxvip %UHW&RQQRU $QGUH0HDGH VTVvyvvr6hy VTVvyvvr6hy @yrp vpvBh @yrp vpvBh ( ! !&"##$' ( ! !&"##%# *i rfp 5pipp *hq rfrhqr5pipp 23 May 2000 Enron Corporation 1. Executive summary Price: May 22, 2000 Enron is one of the largest and most innovative companies competing in the US $73.25 deregulating energy markets worldwide. It is a market leader in the US and is growing rapidly in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. We believe that its Fair Value wholesale energy business will continue to grow quickly and remain the primary US $76 (+4%) driver of earnings. We believe 2000 will be a breakout year for Enron’s retail energy services business.
    [Show full text]