Section 230 Appeal in The Dirty

It sounds like oral arguments in Dirty World v. Jones went well for Mr. Nik Ritchie.  (source)  I certainly hope so, as my client was an amicus in that case.  (Amicus Brief)  

5 Responses to Section 230 Appeal in The Dirty

  1. Evren Seven says:

    I went on the Dirty a couple times when this whole thing first broke out to see what it’s all about. Anyone who is thinking clearly can see that Ritchie is contributing and helping create the material. To even argue otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps the lower court’s ruling was too broad as to what exactly constitutes contribution/ creation of material, but Ritchie is clearly doing it even to a narrower definition.

    Also, I wonder how this will interact with the Hadeed carpet cleaning vs yelp case… although I believe that’s a State court issue (for now) the state court is forcing Yelp to disclose its anonymous contributors to open up personal liability for their comments/ reviews.

    And no matter what happens, I really do wish the worst, most awful disease on Ritchie. Something real slow, disfiguring and painful. I think that’s something we can all agree on.

    • In the past I used to enjoy debating/educating the haters. I finally realized something — it’s always a complete fucking waste of time. It does not matter who’s wrong or right. People just don’t listen. They don’t care about the facts and they sure as hell don’t care about the law.

      People care about one thing and one thing only — themselves. If someone or something pisses you off or affects you in a negative way, then of course that thing or person is wrong and should be destroyed….end of story. Fuck the truth; if you’re angry, you will never allow a silly thing like the truth to get in the way of what you really want — revenge. Can we at least be honest about that much?

      It goes like this — you hear about an issue for 15-20 seconds. You have a knee-jerk reaction about it and you form an opinion. POOF — once formed, that opinion is carved in stone. Once a person decides that their point of view is correct, you can never, ever convince them they’re wrong. NEVER. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an imbecile.

      Yet hope springs eternal, so once again I will ignore my better judgment and spend a few minutes trying to debate this issue. I realize there is absolutely zero chance of convincing you that you’re wrong, but at least I can feel satisfied knowing that I tried.

      So, let’s talk about this.

      Your comment states that after looking at TheDirty.com (without explaining exactly what you looked at), you concluded: “Anyone who is thinking clearly can see that Ritchie is contributing and helping create the material. To even argue otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.”

      Wow. Strong words, man. But can you be any more specific? What EXACTLY do you think that Nik is doing to “contribute” or “create” material on the site? Yes, we know that Nik picks and chooses what to publish and what to reject. As far as the law is concerned, this can never, ever qualify as “creating” content – NEVER. If you don’t understand or agree with that statement, then you’re too stupid or too dishonest to understand these things.

      But let’s assume that you actually agree that selecting content is not the same as creating content. OK, great — now we are getting somewhere. So what OTHER things is Nik doing to create material on his site? (This is where you really need to be specific).

      If you’re right, then responding to this should be really, really easy. Just point us to whatever pages you saw that supported your conclusion.

      While you’re doing that, I have a few questions for you —

      Have you ever looked at the site’s content submission form? Hint — it’s here: http://thedirty.com/submit-post/

      Do you agree that it’s literally a blank box which is 100% neutral?

      Do you concede that people can submit posts on any topic they want, either positive or negative?

      Do you acknowledge that Nik never, ever asks anyone to post anything FALSE?

      Seriously — you claim to have superior intellectual honesty, so please enlighten us – what precisely is your basis for saying that Nik contributes and helps to create material on his site? Please give specific examples and/or provide links to the pages that support your position.

      I’m waiting….

  2. andrews says:

    I looked at thedirty.com extensively, or as extensively as can be done in less than two minutes, and it is a fairly easy case. There are comments from random people whom I assume to have plenty of time on their hands.

    Comments generally fall within S:230 immunity. The suit here is described as being about the comments. My guess is that the trial court was having a bad day.

  3. Joe says:

    The angle of attack to hurt thedirty is chasing him for 2257 Record Keeping on the hosted photos. tip :)

%d bloggers like this: