The court rejected the defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds of Section 230 immunity, ruling that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants wrote disparaging report titles and headings, and themselves wrote disparaging editorial messages about the plaintiff, rendered them information content providers.
Within two days both companies withdrew their services from Backpage.
This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect.
Under that court's holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems.
The plaintiff's child downloaded pornography from a public library's computers which did not restrict access to minors.
The court found the library was not responsible for the content of the internet and explicitly found that section 230(c)(1) immunity covers governmental entities and taxpayer causes of action.