Search for: "In Re CDA"
Results 201 - 220
of 286
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2012, 10:36 am
Specific Media, In re Doubleclick, Cohen v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 6:51 am
But we’re guessing that the Government may not be happy with this result. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 11:12 am
Accord In re Rolando S [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 8:05 am
We hope that you’ll support them too, by lending your organization’s support at www.internetdeclaration.org, or, if you’re an individual, participating in the calls to action organized by other signers such as Access, Credo, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press.More than signing onto these principles, though, we hope you’ll engage with them: discuss them, debate them, add or subtract to them, modify them, remix them, make them your own. [read post]
22 Jun 2012, 11:03 am
" I think this is a correct synthesis of current precedent (especially after Rescuecom), but it misses the broader context that we're talking about a review site selling ads to support its editorial content. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 4:58 am
They’re wrong. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 7:03 am
In Re Robinson Quality Constructors, ASBCA No. 55784, 09-1 B.C.A. [read post]
16 May 2012, 5:47 pm
CDA Law does not deserve to be rated ‘F’ by the BBB. [read post]
16 May 2012, 5:47 pm
CDA Law does not deserve to be rated ‘F’ by the BBB. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 10:03 am
Citing Furber and Shiamili, the court says "merely encouraging defamatory posts is not sufficient to defeat CDA immunity. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 1:14 pm
We're not much wiser in terms of Twitter policy than we were when we started. [read post]
28 Jan 2012, 1:33 pm
We're not much wiser in terms of Twitter policy than we were when we started. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 12:56 pm
Parents don’t necessarily know what they’re getting into. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 12:13 pm
He also concludes that the fact that the filtering efforts stopped and re-started is not in any way indicative of bad faith. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 8:09 am
” (So apparently they’re both likely consumers whose confusion is relevant and defendants? [read post]
30 Jul 2011, 2:52 am
Of course, as is well established in both the statute and in the case law, 800Notes is protected from liability on the comments of its users thanks to both Section 230 of the CDA and basic common sense about who's legally liable for statements. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 10:54 pm
(Both CDA and Julie can be found on my Trusted Attorney list.) [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 1:22 pm
This re-posting was followed by additional allegedly defamatory statements by anonymous users. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 10:33 am
On the point of Search Engine Land authors making adequate disclosures, Danny responded: Going forward, we're drafting up a disclosure statement that will be added to our contributor guidelines, and our contributors will get a reminder of this in the next monthly newsletter that goes out to them. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 5:26 am
Code § 230, which is part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). [read post]
