CYBERSPACE — Earlier this year, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against Matthew Herrick, a New Yorker who sued Grindr, alleging the company failed to take action when an ex-boyfriend used the hookup app to send 1,200 men to his home in an apparent harassment campaign. Herrick’s lawyer, Carrie A Goldberg, appealed that decision; this week, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and Goldberg reacted poorly.
The original 3-0 decision against Herrick rejected claims of negligence against Grindr, whose attorney, Daniel Waxman, persuaded the court that the company is immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, the federal law that shields companies from liability for publishing third-party content.
Herrick’s suit against Grindr had been closely watched by the adult industry, particularly in the wake of FOSTA-SESTA, as it carried the potential to make tech companies legally liable for actions carried out by users of their platforms.
“The party at fault here was Herrick's ex-boyfriend, but it was Grindr that Herrick chose to take to court. The case was not argued well. The allegations contained suppositions that were pretty much impossible to reconcile,” observed TechDirt.com.
Legal scholar and law professor Eric Goldman tweeted a quick summary. “It's not the least bit surprising, but today SCOTUS denied cert in Herrick v. Grindr, a significant [Section 230] defense-favorable ruling,” he wrote.
Goldberg retweeted Goldman’s message and added the following commentary: “Sure would be a shame if somebody misused a dating app to send men to this guy's home as happened 1200+ times to our client, Matthew.”
TechDirt called her reply “bizarre and inappropriate,” while law blogger Scott H. Greenfield described it as “inexcusable.”
“So Carrie Goldberg would call on her Twitter followers to attack a law (professor), as her client was attacked by some sick guy he picked on Grindr, for disagreeing with her legal position?” Greenfield asked. He acknowledged Goldberg might have been merely “venting.”
“But when a lawyer calls for an attack on a (professor) whose commentary disputes her legal theory — ‘destroy Goldman like my client was destroyed by his ex-boyfriend’ — we’ve reached a new depth,” he said.
TechDirt notes the “unfortunate side effect” of recent legal arguments against Section 230 immunity. “It's become increasingly popular to blame the immunity for the deeds and words of third-party users. This, of course, makes no sense,” they note. “But the alternative is to recognize users are responsible for their own conduct and content and that unfortunate truth simply won't suffice when there's lawsuits to be filed.”
If Section 230 is weakened or destroyed, “the services and platforms Section 230 opponents seem to believe will become better will actually become more restrictive or cease to exist,” they continue. “And crude reactions like Goldberg's are exactly the sort of thing that will disappear fastest if platforms can be sued for things their users have said.”
At post time, Goldberg’s tweet was still up.
