Rebooting Internet Immunity
Gregory M. Dickinson

TL;DR
This paper argues for a refined legal immunity framework for online entities, aligning internet law with the internet's evolving functions beyond content distribution, to better address real-world harms and promote accountability.
Contribution
It proposes limiting online immunity to claims related to content moderation, allowing other claims to be pursued to improve accountability and adapt to the internet's diverse roles.
Findings
Current immunity favors online entities avoiding liability for harms.
Proposed immunity limits aim to align legal treatment with internet's functions.
Empowers courts to distinguish culpable conduct in online environments.
Abstract
We do everything online. We shop, travel, invest, socialize, and even hold garage sales. Even though we may not care whether a company operates online or in the physical world, however, the question has dramatic consequences for the companies themselves. Online and offline entities are governed by different rules. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, online entities -- but not physical-world entities -- are immune from lawsuits related to content authored by their users or customers. As a result, online entities have been able to avoid claims for harms caused by their negligence and defective product designs simply because they operate online. The reason for the disparate treatment is the internet's dramatic evolution over the last two decades. The internet of 1996 served as an information repository and communications channel and was well governed by Section 230,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsFreedom of Expression and Defamation · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Business Law and Ethics
