Protecting Communications Act Section 230 Key for Google Supporters Against Mississippi AG
Supporters of Google's case against Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood want to ensure the viability of Communications Act Section 230, they said in interviews and statements Monday. But Google’s critics said the company and its allies are using disingenuous means to make a point about copyright where it doesn’t apply. CEA, the Computer and Communications Industry Association and Engine filed a joint brief on behalf of Google Friday, a CEA news release Monday said. The Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge and R-Street Institute also filed a pro-Google brief Friday, an EFF news release said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Google filed a lawsuit in December against Hood, alleging that he tried to censor the Internet in an administrative subpoena he filed against the company in October (see 1412190045). Google’s complaint alleges Hood took those actions “following a sustained lobbying effort” by MPAA. Stolen documents made public in the Sony Pictures Entertainment data breach purported to show MPAA’s involvement in a letter Hood sent to Google in 2013, blasting the company for a number of alleged consumer violations. Those documents reignited the debate over the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which could influence Congress’ copyright review this Congress, copyright experts told us then (see 1412170050). Some of the alleged Sony emails refer to “Goliath” as its primary opponent, which many suspected was a pseudonym for Google.
Hood also had supporters. State AGs from Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington filed a joint brief on Hood’s behalf Jan. 22. The Digital Citizens Alliance, Ryan United, the Taylor Hooton Foundation and Stop Child Predators filed a pro-Hood brief the same day. The International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition also filed a brief on behalf of Hood Jan. 22. In response to the administrative subpoena, “Google sent more than 99,000 jumbled, unsearchable documents in a data dump,” Hood said in a December statement. Google didn’t comment.
Although Google has improved its anti-piracy efforts, MPAA continues to use its “legacy influence to expand its power over online content search and hosting,” CEA CEO Gary Shapiro said in a release. MPAA “lost its public battle for control of the web in 2012,” after Internet stakeholders “overwhelmingly rejected SOPA and PIPA [Protect IP Act] legislation,” he said. “After failing to achieve web control in a transparent way, MPAA is embracing an opaque strategy of empowering state attorneys general, including Mississippi’s Jim Hood,” Shapiro said. “These trustees of the public good shouldn’t allow themselves to be tools for promoting one of the least popular proposals in the history of U.S. Internet policy.”
CEA, CCIA, EFF and PK are “essentially tools of Google,” David Lowery, a business lecturer at the University of Georgia and a songwriter, said in an interview. That has been “demonstrated” by their briefs in this case, because their “dog in the fight” isn’t clear, he said. They’re just “astroturf organizations that represent the interests of Google and nobody else,” Lowery said. PK didn’t comment.
EFF’s interest in the case isn’t about Google; it’s about sending a “message” to the court that the outcome of the case could affect small ISPs that don’t have the finances to manage an investigation of the scope that Hood requested of Google, Jamie Lee Williams, EFF legal fellow, said in an interview. Preserving Section 230, which protects Internet intermediaries from content posted by third parties, goes “far beyond” Google, she said. "If you look at the signatories and what’s in this filing, it's clear this issue of free speech online is really an industry-wide concern," a CCIA spokeswoman said.
Lowery questioned the legality of using stolen documents in a legal dispute. Hood didn’t “really go after copyright infringement” in his complaint against Google, he said. Hood’s subpoena cited illegal pharmaceutical sites that generate advertising revenue for Google and its partners, Lowery said. If rightsholders want to “go after Google over copyright, we should go after it over copyright,” not alleged consumer violations, he said.
EFF’s concern with Hood’s subpoena stemmed from its taking issue with third-party content, Williams said. The “breadth” of the 79-page subpoena was “very unusual” and could be “very dangerous,” she said. Williams said Hood had suggested that in the process of conducting the investigation, IP violations by Google under Mississippi state law could have been uncovered. But Section 230 pre-empts state law, she said. Williams said Hood’s reply to dismiss Google’s suit was due Monday. Hood’s office didn’t comment.
"The notion that government should not censor the internet is hardly unique to any one company," Michael Petricone, CEA senior vice president-government affairs, said. "This idea has been emphatically rejected by Congress and the American people," he emailed. "Most recently, in 2013, millions of Americans contacted policymakers to protest the internet censorship bill 'SOPA' -- the largest online protest in history."