5. Extending the injunction to Avvo violates a provision of federal law, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. 3 If there were something actionable in the story posted on Avvo by Arizona attorney Jeremy Geigle, suit would have to be brought against Geigle himself. Avvo, however, is an Internet platform on which both lawyers and consumers may post content, and Geigle’s article is precisely that: content provided by Geigle and uploaded by Geigle to Avvo’s Internet servers. Sirotnik Dec., ¶ 9.
Section 230 protects the provider of an interactive computer service from being held liable for content provided by one of its users. Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); Austin v. CrystalTech Web Hosting, 211 Ariz. 569, 573, 125 P.3d 389, 393 (App. 2005). Finally, the injunction against publication and public access to Avvo’s story violates the First Amendment as well as federal and state law. It violates the First Amendment in part because it is a prior restraint — an injunction issued against speech without any evidence and without any judicial findings issued after a full and fair hearing that any statement in the article was false or published with actual malice.
