Zeran v. America Online, Inc.
1997 United States court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Zeran v. America Online, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997),[2] cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998),[1] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."[3]
Zeran v. America Online, Inc. | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |
Full case name | Kenneth M. Zeran v. America Online, Incorporated |
Argued | October 2, 1997 |
Decided | November 12, 1997 |
Citation(s) | 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) |
Case history | |
Prior history | 958 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D. Va. 1997) |
Subsequent history | Cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998),[1] |
Holding | |
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects Internet service providers from liability for tort offenses committed by their users. | |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Donald S. Russell, Terrence Boyle (E.D.N.C.) |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Wilkinson, joined by Russell, Boyle |
Laws applied | |
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act |
The Fourth Circuit held that plaintiff Kenneth Zeran's claims of malfeasance by America Online were barred by the CDA, holding that Section 230 "creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service." In the words of the Zeran court:
[L]awsuits seeking to hold a service liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content – are barred. The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. ... Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication ...[4]