Ninth Circuit Finds in Favor of Yahoo in Online Harassment Suit Under Bad Law

The Ninth Circuit finds for a large faceless multi-national corporation under a bad law (Communications Decency Act) in Barnes v. Yahoo (pdf). Obviously another proof that this country is being run not by, "We the People," but by the Supremacy of the Super-Citizens. Here's a review of the case

Plaintiff's ex-boyfriend created and posted unauthorized "profiles" about plaintiff on Yahoo's website. These profiles, which appeared to come from plaintiff herself, contained nude photos of plaintiff, as well as accurate contact information. Plaintiff's ex-boyfriend, impersonating plaintiff, also solicited men for sex in various chat rooms. The combination of these activities caused plaintiff to be solicited by various men, with understandably unpleasant results.

Plaintiff alleged that she contacted Yahoo on several occasions in an effort to have these profiles removed, without success. According to plaintiff, approximately three months after the first of these contacts, plaintiff was contacted by a Yahoo representative who advised plaintiff that Yahoo would put a stop to these unauthorized profiles. Unfortunately, according to the complaint, this did not occur in the ensuing three months, and, in fact, did not occur until plaintiff commenced suit.

The court found that the claim was barred by the Communications Decency Act under §230

Plaintiff's allegations similarly fall under the broad immunity provided internet servers by § 230. Plaintiff alleges she was harmed by third-party content, and that the service provider [defendant] allegedly breached a common law or statutory duty to block, screen, remove, or otherwise edit that content. Any such claim by plaintiff necessarily treats the service provider as "publisher" of the content and is therefore barred by § 230. Plaintiff's argument that she seeks to hold defendant liable only for its alleged "failure to fulfill its promise to remove the unauthorized profiles," does not remove this case from the immunity provided by § 230.

I'm no lawyer, I'm only a lowly citizen and taxpayer, but in my opinion this section of the law is absurd. The "non-publisher" made money on this material (banner ads), and she was harmed by the continuation of the material on the website.

She has no right to privacy?

She didn't publish the photos. She didn't pose for a magazine. She didn't appear in a video. She acted just like any normal sensible person and requested the content to be removed and was ignored and rebuffed, seemingly because this country is now being run, by, of, and for, the corporations