This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
A batshit crazy concurrence questions “section 230(c)(1)’s constitutionality as applied to state defamation law” because the Constitution’s Commerce Clause power may not convey “the power to nationalize state common law defamation actions… The internet, and related e-commerce, can certainly be interstate in nature.
23, 2015) the court observed that responding parties presumptively bear the expense of complying with discovery requests unless the expense is “significant.” Much of the costs were charges from an e-discovery vendor to collect and search electronically stored information (ESI) , including e-mails relating to Cardinal.
For nearly 30 years, the framework for judging fair use cases has been remarkably stable, based on Justice Souter’s masterful opinion for a unanimous Court in Campbell v. Although Goldsmith’s lawyers pleaded the discovery rule ( id. Oracle software case. (See See my commentary on that case here.) Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. , 569 (1994).
Perhaps Facebook should have done a better job articulating this, but the judge was far too eager to disrespect the editorial function. The court’s statement implicates Internet Law Exceptionalism 101, and this judge–who was so thorough in other discussions–oddly chose to ignore this critical question.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content