Talk:Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.

Purging original research
I just purged a lot of unsourced original research in this article which violated Wikipedia policies like No original research. The worst was the link to a CNN article on Ninth Circuit judicial activism in the Establishment Clause area to support an assertion about Ninth Circuit judicial activism in the Freedom of Speech Clause area, which makes no sense. The two freedoms are related only because they are in the same constitutional amendment, but that alone is the full extent of their connection; their jurisprudence has evolved separately. --Coolcaesar 03:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work. Your name is well deserved. bd2412  T 04:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing incorrect legal analysis
The article stated, "It should be noted that the applicable section of the CDA was originally intended to apply to obvious "interactive computer services" such as America Online. The courts have expanded that definition to include sites such as Matchmaker which would, on the surface, not appear to meet Congress's intended definition of "interactive computer service." This is quite controversial. Due to excessive legal bills and the wear-and-tear of fighting her case for years, however, Masterson ceded defeat and made the decision not to request a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court."

This is a faulty legal analysis. At the time the CDA was adopted, services like Matchmaker and eBay did not exist. Without exception, when this sort of matter has been tested before an appellate court, said court has affirmed that 47 230(c)(1) protection applies to a service provider where that provider has no control over content before it appears online. While this application may be controversial, it is nonetheless uniform and accepted law. Until and unless it is amended by Congress or overturned by the USSC -- and no appeals are presently before the court -- it's accepted law.

I have, accordingly, revised the article.207.69.138.10 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Link Rot/Misleading phrasing
The wiki article had previously stated that Matchmaker refused to remove the profile, which left me personally outraged at the 9th circuit, and sent me to read the decision to see what twisted logic it contained. The link given to the 9th circuit web site did not work, but I was able to find another source and changed the link.

It turns out that it isn't really accurate to say that Matchmaker refused to remove the profile.

Quoting the decision - "Sometime around Saturday, November 6, Siouxzan Perry, who handled Carafano’s professional website and much of her e-mail correspondence, first learned of the false profile" ... "The Matchmaker employee indicated that she could not remove the profile immediately because Perry herself had not posted it, but the company blocked the profile from public view on Monday morning, November 8. At 4:00 AM the following morning, Matchmaker deleted the profile."

Although the decision does not indicate when Perry actually contacted Matchmaker, I changed the text to indicate that they complied, but about two days later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.209.67 (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand but be careful about WP:NPV and WP:BIAS. To suggest that Matchmaker "complied" omits several key facts and, IMO, biases the article. Masterson has repeatedly stated that she never would have sued Matchmaker had they agreed to remove the profile violation when it was reported to them. Their refusal to do so for a number of days (I believe it was significantly greater than two, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt), until Masterson contacted law enforcement and got attorneys involved, is precisely what Masterson claimed caused the damage to her, because this was the time period in which she was harassed.
 * As for your outrage at the 9th Circuit Court, I understand your feelings. I was not involved in the case but had to study it extensively in law school, and believe me, many legal scholars are puzzled by this ruling (that's why it's considered so controversial). But in any case, I want to make sure that this article is neutral, and states both sides' positions. As it read, the article would lead a reader to believe that this case was about the courts protecting an interactive computer service that "couldn't possibly" be made to be held accountable for every random thing an anonymous user posts. In reality, that's not what this was about at all -- it was about a computer service that was made aware of illegal activity being conducted on its website, but the service chose to allow it anyway, at least for a few days. Since then, just FYI, Carafano v. Metrosplash has been used to prevent law enforcement officials from holding Craigslist responsible for child sex-slave trade ads posted in the Craigslist "erotic services" section, even after Craigslist was aware that such activity was taking place. It is a very, very controversial ruling. 69.231.211.152 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

this is ONE confusing article
Just some user feedback: I've read several paragraphs many times, and I still don't understand them. And some of what I think to understand contradicts each other. Please, somebody who knows his or her way around in this, rephrase and restructure.178.199.97.81 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, this complaint is very general - can you be more specific? BMK (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing additional incorrect legal analysis
See section above about the phrasing "The applicable section of the CDA was originally designed to apply to obvious "interactive computer services" such as America Online. Since its original passage, however, numerous courts have expanded that definition to include sites such as Matchmaker and eBay, regardless of whether or not the service provider has the ability to control or edit content before it appears online."

It was improved sometime between 2006 and today, but it is still misleading. The phrasing as it was implies that AOL is different than other sites because it is an "obvious" interactive service. The only thing distinguishing this case from Zeran v. AOL is that Matchmaker had a multiple-choice questionnaire (and, of course, there was a sexual aspect, but that is not considered by the court or the removed graf). Fundamentally, both sites hosted user-generated content.

Furthermore, the phrasing makes a legal conclusion about Congress's intent in passing §230 that isn't borne out in the case law. Both Carafano and Gentry v. eBay do not purport to expand the definition beyond the intent of Congress. Indeed, in Carafano, the court says, "[§230] precludes treatment as a publisher or speaker for "any information provided by another information content provider." Therefore, the court did not expand §230 but rather applied the statute to the website in the instant case. 734cpa (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)