the immunity would not apply.
184
Finally, courts extended its interpretation of the term
“information” to include even computer programs.
185
C
ONCLUSION
The study analyzed how have federal appellate courts and state supreme courts applied the
immunity provisions of the Communications Decency Act to online defamation disputes. The
study contributes to the literature on the CDA and online defamation by identifying the
protective scope of the Act based on the courts’ interpretation of the three prongs of the CDA
and which of the emerging forms of interactive Internet communication have benefited from this
federal shield.
The federal immunity is in place once three elements are satisfied: defendant is “a provider
or user of an interactive computer service,” “treated as publisher or speaker,” and finally the
“information [is] provided by another content provider.” Generally, section 230’s immunity has
been interpreted broadly. The CDA shields both institutional and individual service providers.
This shield applies equally to providers of Internet access or other computer services such as
online stock quotations or dating services. The shield protects users of computer services as well,
with no difference between active and passive users. The provision bars placing ISPs in the
publisher’s role, with the term publisher broadly defined to encompass both publishers and
distributors. Finally, the Act bars suits against ISPs for information provided by other
information content providers, with this later term broadly defined to preclude transforming an
ISP into a content provider based on editorial decisions.
184
Batzel v. Smith, 351 F. 3d 904 (9th Cir. 2003).
185
Green v. Am. Online, 318 F. 3d 465 (3rd Cir. 2003).
Convention