Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

One of the running gags used to poke fun at Team Kimberlin has been based on the idea that they’ve been getting their legal theories from the legal division of the same Acme provides all those wonderful products to a certain coyote. Seven years ago today, we took a look at Another Fine Acme Legal Theory that Bill Schmalfeldt was peddling.

* * * * *

vbr201402210202Z47 U.S.C § 230(c) says that the person providing content is responsible for what he provides. In the case of a comment posted here at Hogewash!, that’s the author of the comment. The law says that

[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.

* * * * *

And Team Kimberlin did wind up going 0 for 8 in the LOLsuits they filed against me.

1 thought on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

  1. William’s striving for ever-new and innovative legal theories has certainly advanced the field of Schmalaw. Who knew of pro-se prosecutors before William strode into the arena?

Leave a Reply