A Comment on Malwarebytes v. Enigma: Difference between revisions

From Bibliotheca Anonoma
(Created page with "''Disclaimer: '''I am not a lawyer''', and this article '''is not and should not be relied on as legal advice'''.'' On first glance, [https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cour...")
 
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
On first glance, [https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101920zr1_ebfi.pdf ''Malwarebytes v. Enigma''] may not seem to be very important. It doesn't seem to be. It's one of those cases where one party has appealed a case all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it doesn't think the case is important enough for them to take.  
On first glance, [https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101920zr1_ebfi.pdf ''Malwarebytes v. Enigma''] may not seem to be very important. It doesn't seem to be. It's one of those cases where one party has appealed a case all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it doesn't think the case is important enough for them to take.  


But, even if its legal effect may not extend beyond the medium- or even short-term, it has historical value. For one, it is the first time the Supreme Court has interpreted or even mentioned a very important statute, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. For two, it shows how the Supreme Court, or at least one justice of it (nobody else joined this "statement"), is inclined to interpret section 230 should a case revolving around it ever come before the Court.
But, even if its legal effect may not extend beyond the medium- or even short-term, it has historical value. For one, it is the first time the Supreme Court has interpreted or even mentioned a very important statute for the Internet, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act<ref>To be sure, this is section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which was added by section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The CDA is the name for the part of Telecommunications Act section 509 is in. This was codified to 47 USC 230. Confusing, I know.</ref>. For two, it shows how the Supreme Court, or at least one justice of it (nobody else joined this "statement"), is inclined to interpret section 230 should a case revolving around it ever come before the Court.
 
When a judge interprets a law, he will of course first look to the plain meaning of the text. If the plain meaning supplies no clear meaning or a clearly absurd one, he will then look to the purpose of the legislature in enacting the law.
 
So first, a brief discussion of the Communications Decency Act, with a view to its purpose. In the early 1990s, the Internet had been opened to commercial use, and massive growth began as entrepreneurs decided to make their pot of gold by colonizing it. The Religious Right being very much in power at the time, they were afraid that there would be content on the Internet that would corrupt good morals. That's why the Communications ''Decency'' Act is called this: to make it illegal to transmit "indecent" content on the Internet, even if the Supreme Court had found it otherwise protected by the First Amendment.
==Notes==
<references />

Revision as of 04:14, 29 October 2020

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this article is not and should not be relied on as legal advice.

On first glance, Malwarebytes v. Enigma may not seem to be very important. It doesn't seem to be. It's one of those cases where one party has appealed a case all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it doesn't think the case is important enough for them to take.

But, even if its legal effect may not extend beyond the medium- or even short-term, it has historical value. For one, it is the first time the Supreme Court has interpreted or even mentioned a very important statute for the Internet, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act[1]. For two, it shows how the Supreme Court, or at least one justice of it (nobody else joined this "statement"), is inclined to interpret section 230 should a case revolving around it ever come before the Court.

When a judge interprets a law, he will of course first look to the plain meaning of the text. If the plain meaning supplies no clear meaning or a clearly absurd one, he will then look to the purpose of the legislature in enacting the law.

So first, a brief discussion of the Communications Decency Act, with a view to its purpose. In the early 1990s, the Internet had been opened to commercial use, and massive growth began as entrepreneurs decided to make their pot of gold by colonizing it. The Religious Right being very much in power at the time, they were afraid that there would be content on the Internet that would corrupt good morals. That's why the Communications Decency Act is called this: to make it illegal to transmit "indecent" content on the Internet, even if the Supreme Court had found it otherwise protected by the First Amendment.

Notes

  1. To be sure, this is section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which was added by section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The CDA is the name for the part of Telecommunications Act section 509 is in. This was codified to 47 USC 230. Confusing, I know.