Search for: "Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC" Results 1 - 20 of 24
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jan 2016, 7:45 am by Eric Goldman
Photo credit: 3D Quick Link Crossword // ShutterStockSection 230 * Backpage.com, LLC v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 8:35 am by Eric Goldman
Those allegations include that (1) “Backpage.com … has intentionally developed its website to require information that allows and encourages … illegal trade to occur through its website, including the illegal trafficking of underage girls,” (2) “Backpage.com has developed content requirements that it knows will allow pimps and prostitutes to evade law enforcement,” (3) “Backpage.com knows that the foregoing content… [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 6:56 am by Eric Goldman
The court rejected this argument because Section 230(e)(1) only excludes federal criminal prosecutions, not civil lawsuits predicated on federal criminal law (citing Doe v. [read post]
8 Nov 2022, 5:31 am by Etta Lanum
The Ninth Circuit precedent has consistently held that Section 230(e)(1) applies only to criminal prosecutions and, in Jane Doe 1 v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), and the Seventh Circuit's decision in Backpage.com, LLC v. [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 12:50 pm by Eugene Volokh
 Sullivan and from the Seventh Circuit's precedent in Backpage.com, LLC v. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 3:00 am by Evan Brown
Sad facts, sad result The court seemed to express some trepidation about its result, using the same language the First Circuit Court of Appeals used in Jane Doe No. 1 v. [read post]