One of the running gags about Team Kimberlin’s incompetence in their LOLsuits is the idea that they buy their legal advice from the same Acme Company that sells goods to Wile E. Coyote. The TKPOTD from four years ago took a look at Another Fine Acme Legal Theory.
* * * * *
[n]o 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.
Furthermore, 47 U.S.C § 230(e)(2) says in part that
No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
Now, Acme will probably point to the recent Hare v. Richie case where discovery was allowed to continue in spite of a website’s contention that is was protected by § 230. There are three things to consider. First, discovery was allowed in that case to determine if the site operator was involved in producing any of the offending content. Second, the plaintiff wound up losing the case. It was dismissed.
Third, discovery in a similar lawsuit involving Hogewash! would lead to the same result.
* * * * *
So far that theory has failed against this blog and me in four LOLsuits and a peace order petition from The
Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin and four LOLsuits from The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt.
Apparently, when they read the thing about “satisfaction guaranteed,” they didn’t understand that Acme meant mine.