REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I N G R A S
F F I C E
, P L L C 3 9 4 1 E . C
H A N D L E R
L V D
. , # 1 0 6 - 2 4 3 P
H O E N I X
, A Z 8 5 0 4 8
David S. Gingras, #021097
Gingras Law Office, PLLC
3941 E. Chandler Blvd., #106-243Phoenix, AZ 85048Tel.: (480) 668-3623Fax: (480) 248-3196David@GingrasLaw.com Attorney for Defendant Dirty World, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF ARIZONADANIELLE DYER,Plaintiff,vs.DIRTY WORLD, LLC,Defendant.
Case No: 2:11-CV-00074-SRB
REPLY IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant DIRTY WORLD, LLC (“Defendant” or “Dirty World” or “DW”)respectfully submits the following Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
This Court’s experience with Arizona’s SB 1070 notwithstanding, few laws inrecent memory have created as much controversy, criticism, and outright confusion as theCommunications Decency Act. The CDA has been deemed “bad policy,”
Noah v. AOLTime Warner, Inc.
, 261 F.Supp.2d 532, 539 n.5 (E.D.Va. 2003), and some courts havewarned that the broad immunity afforded by the CDA can have “disturbing implications.”
Barrett v. Rosenthal
, 40 Cal.4
33, 63, 146 P.3d 510, 529 (Cal. 2006).Despite these concerns, no court in any CDA decision has
done what Plaintiff seeks here—imposing tort liability on a website operator for merely publishing speechcreated by an unrelated third party. It is apparent that Plaintiff fails to appreciate thesound logic and reasoning for the CDA, so a short discussion of this issue is appropriate.
Case 2:11-cv-00074-SRB Document 19 Filed 05/16/11 Page 1 of 15