Videos:
ECPA
Theories of Privacy
Section 230
paper 2, due 6/21
From the preliminary version, third paragraph:
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
From reason.com/volokh/2023/06/16/short-circuit-a-roundup-of-recent-federal-court-decisions-215 (a weekly summary of circuit court decisions):
Family members of individuals killed by guns that had been listed on the online firearms marketplace armslist.com sue, alleging that the website was negligently designed to encourage and assist firearms buyers and sellers in circumventing federal and state law. Are the negligence claims barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? Seventh Circuit: No need to answer that question, because plaintiffs haven't adequately pleaded a claim for negligence.
There's another armslist.com discussion in the notes, in Daniel v Armslist. That was also a negligence claim, but entirely within Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in that case that Armslist had developed a "neutral tool" and was therefore not responsible for its misuse.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VlmxehNLAWjL5POYTQzVU3T1kTzvq63ine46NujeZ5w