![\"\"](\"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/Wolak-pic-e1578167682950.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
By Stephanie Wolak, Staff Writer<\/p>\n
Photo provided courtesy of Pixabay.com<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In 1996, Congress enacted the Validity, Construction, and Application of Immunity Provisions of Communications Decency Act, <\/em>including Section 230, the \u201cProtection for private blocking and screening of offensive material.\u201d\u00a0[1] <\/sup> Section 230 states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the speaker or publisher of any information provided by another content provider, nor can the provider or user be held civilly liable on the account of actions of another user. [2] <\/sup> Today we would understand this as social media platforms, like Facebook and Snapchat, where the site\u2019s users interact with their \u201cfriends,\u201d cannot be held liable for what their users \u201cpost\u201d to the users\u2019 accounts.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Congress found Section 230 necessary to encourage free development of computer services in the United States, and in order to prevent interactive internet sites from using extreme blocking and filtering technologies out to a fear of being sued by offended users. [3] <\/sup>However, in recent years, many interactive computer service providers have come under fire for not policing their users efficiently enough; Facebook<\/em> and foreign fake accounts concerning the 2016 presidential election to Gab<\/em>, the extremist-friendly website, where synagogue-shooter Bowers posted about his intended actions. [4] <\/sup><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Social media sites and apps have been consistently held to be protected by Section 230, including most recently Grindr LLC. [5] <\/sup> Grindr is a popular, male-dominate, LGBTQ dating app matching users with their location-based profiles. [6] <\/sup><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Matthew Herrick met his boyfriend on the app back in 2015 and soon deleted the app from his phone, but the couple broke things off in 2016. [7] <\/sup> That\u2019s when the abuse started by his ex-boyfriend, only referred to as \u201cJ.C.\u201d in court documents. [8] <\/sup> Between October 2016 and March 2017, over 1,000 men came to Herrick\u2019s home and workplace, believing they were meeting Herrick for violent or outlandish sex. [9] <\/sup> At the peak, 16 men were coming to his door every day, some believing Herrick had \u201crape-fantasies\u201d so if Herrick was resisting their advances it was merely \u201cpart of the act.\u201d [10] <\/sup> Only Herrick had no idea who these men were, never less invited them to his home. [11] <\/sup> The men swore they matched with Herrick and had been conversing with him on various dating apps. [12] <\/sup><\/p>\n <\/p>\n J.C., Herrick\u2019s ex, had created fake profiles using photos from Herrick\u2019s Instagram account, and impersonated Herrick under usernames like \u201cGang Bang Now!\u201d and falsely claiming Herrick was HIV-positive and interested in unprotected sex and bondage. [13] <\/sup> Herrick filed for protective orders and police reports against J.C., but that did little to prevent J.C. from remotely sending the strange men to his home and work. [14] <\/sup> Herrick sent over 100 complaints to Grindr LLC reporting the fake profiles, requesting to have them removed from the app; and recruited friends, family and eventually his attorney to do the same. Grindr took no action. [15] <\/sup><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Scruff<\/em> and Jack\u2019d,<\/em> two other dating apps where J.C. had created false profiles of Herrick, responded to Herrick\u2019s complaints and timely deactivated the false profiles and banned J.C. from using the platforms. [16] <\/sup> Whereas Grindr failed to respond until Herrick\u2019s attorney took the company to court. [17] <\/sup> Grindr argued that under federal law, Section 230, it did not have to remove the false profiles created by J.C. and held liability for J.C.\u2019s actions. [18] <\/sup>In January 2019, a New York Federal Judge ruled in favor of Grindr, under Section 230\u2019s protections. Herrick has consistently appealed the decisions, even after the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court\u2019s dismissal of his claims under Section 230. [19] <\/sup> <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> 47 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 230<\/em>.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> 47 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 230<\/em>.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [6]<\/a> About<\/em>, Grindr https:\/\/www.grindr.com\/about\/<\/a><\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [8]<\/a> A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr<\/em>, A Lawsuit Says,<\/em> Tyler Kingkade, https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/tylerkingkade\/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking<\/a><\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [12]<\/a> A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr<\/em>, A Lawsuit Says,<\/em> Tyler Kingkade, https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/tylerkingkade\/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking<\/a><\/p>\n [13]<\/a> A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr<\/em>, A Lawsuit Says,<\/em> Tyler Kingkade, https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/tylerkingkade\/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking<\/a><\/p>\n [14]<\/a> A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr<\/em>, A Lawsuit Says,<\/em> Tyler Kingkade, https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/tylerkingkade\/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking<\/a><\/p>\n [15]<\/a> Matthew Herrick v Grindr LLC<\/em>, Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.cagoldberglaw.com\/matthew-herrick-v-grindr-llc\/<\/a><\/p>\n [16]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [17]<\/a> A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr<\/em>, A Lawsuit Says,<\/em> Tyler Kingkade, https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/tylerkingkade\/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking<\/a><\/p>\n [18]<\/a> A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr<\/em>, A Lawsuit Says,<\/em> Tyler Kingkade, https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/tylerkingkade\/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking<\/a><\/p>\n [19]<\/a> Grindr User Asks Supreme Court to Hear App Harassment Case<\/em>, Alexis Kramer, https:\/\/news.bloomberglaw.com\/tech-and-telecom-law\/ex-grindr-user-asks-supreme-court-to-hear-app-harassment-case<\/a><\/u>.<\/p>\n [20] <\/span><\/a>Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [21]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n [22]<\/a> A Man Sent 1,000 Men Expecting Sex and Drugs to His Ex-Boyfriend Using Grindr<\/em>, A Lawsuit Says,<\/em> Tyler Kingkade, https:\/\/www.buzzfeednews.com\/article\/tylerkingkade\/grindr-herrick-lawsuit-230-online-stalking<\/a><\/p>\n [23]<\/a> Herrick v. Grindr: Why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Must be Fixed,<\/em> Carrie Goldberg, https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230-communications-decency-act-must-be-fixed<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Stephanie Wolak, Staff Writer Photo provided courtesy of Pixabay.com In 1996, Congress enacted the Validity, Construction, and Application of Immunity Provisions of Communications Decency Act, including Section 230, the \u201cProtection for private blocking and screening of offensive material.\u201d\u00a0[1] Section 230 states that no provider or user of an [\u2026] <\/p>\n
\nOn August 7th<\/sup>, Herrick petitioned his case to be heard by the Supreme Court. [20] <\/sup> The petition criticized the \u201calmost absolute immunity\u201d given to internet companies from claims of abuse by users under Section 230. [21] <\/sup> \u201cAs this case demonstrates, in 2019 this is a matter of life and death for victims of stalking targeted by computer technologies with functionalities unimaginable when Congress passed CDA \u00a7 230(c)(1) in 1996,\u201d Herrick has said. [22] <\/sup> It is clear that abusers, like J.C. in Herrick\u2019s case, have started to widely use social media platforms to continue their abuse through \u201crevenge porn\u201d and stalking. [23] <\/sup> We will see if the Supreme Court believes it is \u00a0time to draw a line on in the sand on if, or how much, liability internet platforms should have.<\/p>\n