Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Force v. Facebook, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2019 US appeals court decision

Force v. Facebook
CourtUS Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided2019
Docket nos.No. 18-397
Case history
Appealed toPetition for Certiorari before the US Supreme Court, denied
Related actionPetition for Certiorari denied toDryoff v. Ultimate Software Group, Inc.
ArgumentOral argument
Court membership
Judges sittingKatzmann, CJ., andDroney andSullivan, JJ.
Case opinions
Decision byDroney, joined by Sullivan
Concur/dissentKatzmann
This article is part of a series about
Meta Platforms
Meta Platforms logo
Products and services
People
Executives and board members
Notable employees
Related organizations
Business

Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019) was a 2019 decision by theUS Second Circuit Appeals Court holding thatSection 230 bars civil terrorism claims againstsocial media companies and internet service providers, the first federal appellate court to do so.[1]

The court ruled that therecommender system remains as part of the role of the distributor of the content and not the publisher, since these automated tools were essentially neutral.[2][3] TheUS Supreme Court declined in 2020 to hear an appeal of the case.

JudgeRobert Katzman gave a 35-page dissenting opinion in theForce case, stating "Mounting evidence suggests that providers designed their algorithms to drive users toward content and people the users agreed with – and that they have done it too well, nudging susceptible souls ever further down dark paths."[4] Katzman's dissent was cited by Judge Clarence Thomas statement in respect of denying certiorari toMalwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC.

TheElectronic Frontier Foundation filed anamicus curaie brief in the case, arguing for platform immunity.[5]

The court that year also declined to hearDyroff v. Ultimate Software Group Inc., a related case that citedForce.

Case History

[edit]

Oral arguments

Subsequent Case Law and Commentary

[edit]
[icon]
This section is empty. You can help byadding to it.(October 2022)

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^Mackey, Sophia Cope and Aaron (August 7, 2019)."Second Circuit Rules That Section 230 Bars Civil Terrorism Claims Against Facebook".Electronic Frontier Foundation. RetrievedOctober 4, 2022.
  2. ^Neuburger, Jeffrey (August 9, 2019)."Facebook Shielded by CDA Immunity against Federal Claims for Allowing Use of Its Platform by Terrorists".National Law Review.Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. RetrievedAugust 14, 2019.
  3. ^Robertson, Adi (May 18, 2020)."Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against Facebook for hosting terrorists".The Verge.Archived from the original on January 30, 2021. RetrievedMay 18, 2020.
  4. ^McCabe, David (March 24, 2021)."How a Stabbing in Israel Echoes Through the Fight Over Online Speech".The New York Times.ISSN 0362-4331. RetrievedOctober 4, 2022.
  5. ^"EFF amicus brief Force v Facebook 2d Circuit".Electronic Frontier Foundation. August 5, 2019. RetrievedOctober 4, 2022.
Products,
services
Facebook
Instagram
Hardware
Other
Former
People
Founders
Board
Current
Former
Executive
officers
Current
Former
Oversight
Board
Members
Board of
Trustees
Former
members
Notable
employees
Current
Former
Open
source
Mass
media
Concepts
Business
Lists
Related
This articleneeds additional or more specificcategories. Pleasehelp out byadding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.(June 2023)
Flag of United StatesJustice icon

This article relating tolaw in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Force_v._Facebook,_Inc.&oldid=1337950232"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp