The “Good Samaritan” provision.

“Good Samaritan”

Snapchat created a speed filter which rewarded a user with new filters based upon how fast they were moving. Someone used the filter at 120mph and ended up crashing, killing themselves and two children. The family sued for negligence. Snapchat attempted to invoke 230(c)(1) immunity claiming they can not be treated as “the publisher” for their own negligent conduct. (This is the same defense Facebook used in Fyk vs. Facebook in regards to anticompetitive conduct-both of which are illegal).

The 2nd Circuit Court determined that Section 230(c)(1) does not provide Snapchat 230 protections for negligence conduct. The 9th Circuit in…


proposed “proper” CDA amendment

Time to stop big tech’s abuse

Section 230 is not necessarily broken. The Section 230 is far too vague, it simply needs to be refined in order to guide the courts to properly comport with the legislative purpose and policy intended for the statute.

These are my proposed legislative changes…

(C) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (“INTELLIGIBLE PRINCIPLE”)

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker (OMISSION)

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the primary publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability (ANY ACTION)

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of —

(A)

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene…


Two diametrically opposed 9th Circuit decisions that can neither coexist nor be lawfully reconciled.

Are anticompetitive motivated publishing decisions immune under Section 230?

Most, if not almost all courts, have relied on “questionable precedent” when considering Section 230 immunity. Courts have consistently rendered inconsistent decisions that are both legally and logically inappropriate, the Fyk vs. Facebook decision being one of them. Specifically, Section 230 DOES NOT in fact, “protect[] from liability any activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online” (per 9th Circuit). More specifically Section 230(c)(1) DOES NOT immunize ANY or ALL editorial decisions without regard for…


Justice Thomas welcomed an appropriate case to properly interpret the CDA section 230, and my case should be that case.

Justice Clarence Thomas (left) rendered an extraordinary opinion about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which social media companies like Mark Zuckerberg’s (Right) Facebook rely on as a shield from legal liability.

Some say Section 230 (c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, (“CDA”) gave us the twenty-six words that created the Internet, but “the right to free speech” would be the foundation upon which the Internet was built. Subsection (c)(1) tells us that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Jason M Fyk

Social Media Freedom Advocate. In 2018 Fyk sued Facebook. California courts got it wrong. Now, Fyk is heading to the Supreme Court to fix section 230

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store