The other issue is whether an upholding of the appeals ruling would chill operators of websites, and there is absolutely no question that this is what would happen, according to just about every party who has filed a brief in this case.

http://www.casp.net/barrett2.html

(Appeal decision now being challenged)

“Appellants concede that section 230 bars treatment of providers or
users of interactive computer services as primary publishers subject
to strict liability, but maintain it does not bar treating them as
distributors and subjecting them to knowledge-based liability.
Appellants argue that the trial court’s interpretation of section 230
protects Internet intermediaries who intentionally distribute
injurious third party content, and that this is contrary to the very
purpose of the statute.

If the trial court’s interpretation is upheld, appellants maintain, “a
`clever libeler’ could easily escape liability by having some other
Internet user who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, or
who is anonymous, or who is judgment proof, publish libelous
statements which another `Internet user’ is free to republish.” In
appellants’ view, such an interpretation would convert an act designed
to promote “decency ” into a shield for indecency,” which Congress
could not have intended.
…

We agree with appellants that the statute cannot be deemed to
abrogate the common law principle that one who republishes
defamatory matter originated by a third person is subject to
liability if he or she knows or has reason to know of its
defamatory character. (Rest. 2d Torts, § 581(1).) By construing
section 230 as conferring an absolute immunity, the trial court erred.”

If you wanted to take the side that the appeal court was wrong, fine, you’re in good company.

But your summary … well, let’s just say I can’t say more. If I anger you, it doesn’t matter if I’m right, only that you’re the A-lister.

*Cough*

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=312161&doc_no=S122953&search=party&start=1&query_partyLastNameOrOrg=Barrett

(my emphasis, if it works)

“This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. section 230) confer absolute immunity on an Internet “provider” or “user” who republishes statements made by third parties, or can liability still be imposed under traditional common law principles where the provider or user knows or has reason to know of the defamatory character of a statement it republished on the Internet? (2) What is the meaning of the term “user” under the Act? (3) For purposes of the issue presented by this case, does it matter whether the “user” engaged in active or passive conduct?”

Sigh .. why bother …