• Log In
Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal
Menu Close
  • About Us
  • Masthead
    • Volume 29 Masthead
    • Volume 28 Masthead
    • Volume 27 Masthead
    • Volume 26 Masthead
    • Volume 25 Masthead
    • Volume 24 Masthead
    • Volume 21 Masthead
    • Volume 20 Masthead
    • Volume 19 Masthead
    • Volume 18 Masthead
    • Volume 17 Masthead
  • Articles
    • Volume 29, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 29, Issue 1 Article
    • Volume 28, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 28, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 27, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 27, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 25, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 25, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 24, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 24, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 23, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 23, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 22, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 22, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 21, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 21, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 20, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 20, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 19, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 19, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 18, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 18, Issue 1 Articles
    • Volume 17, Issue 2 Articles
    • Volume 17, Issue 1 Articles
  • Comments
    • Volume 29, Issue 2 Comments
    • Volume 29, Issue 1 Comments
  • Surveys
    • Volume 29, Issue 2 Surveys
    • Volume 29, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 28, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 27, Issue 2 Surveys
    • Volume 27, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 26, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 24, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 23, Issue 2 Surveys
    • Volume 23, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 22, Issue 2 Surveys
    • Volume 22, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 21, Issue 2 Surveys
    • Volume 21, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 20, Issue 2 Surveys
    • Volume 20, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 19, Issue 2 Surveys
    • Volume 19, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 18, Issue 2 Surveys
    • Volume 18, Issue 1 Surveys
    • Volume 17, Issue 2 Surveys
    • Volume 17, Issue 1 Surveys
  • Blog
  • Submissions

Section 230

0

Section 230 and the First Amendment: Is speech freer with Section 230 or without it?

Posted on November 10, 2020 by mwalsh5

Written By: Anoli Motawala Section 230, the Communications Decency Act, was introduced in 1996.[1] The act states that “no provider . . . of an interactive computer service . . . shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of… Continue Reading →

Section 230, Uncategorized

Recent Posts

  • The New Game Off the Field: How Trademarks Win the NIL Era
  • “Hawk-Eye”: Challenging the Future of America’s Pastime
  • Dodging Doge: Data Privacy Under a New Administration
  • Lyrical Lawsuits and Machine-Made Melodies: The Legal Legacy of Concord v. Anthropic.
  • LeBron’s Tattoos in a Video Game? The Surprising Legal Fight You Didn’t See Coming

Tags

Automated Ball-Strike Challenge System Baseball Bay Area Brand Protection Collective Bargaining College Athlete Cyber Law Cybersecurity Data Privacy Employment Law Google Cloud Hawk-Eye Illegal Streaming Intellectual Property Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal Legal Protection Litigation Lockout MLB Name Image Likeness Negotiations NIL Personal Logo Privacy Privacy law Rights Settlement Sports Statcast Student Athletes Trademark Rights Trademarks University of San Francisco School of Law USF USF IPTLJ USPTO

Categories

  • Antitrust
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Blockchain
  • Copyright
  • Cyber Law
  • Fair Use
  • Internet Privacy
  • music
  • NIL
  • Patent
  • Privacy
  • Section 230
  • Trade Secret
  • Trademarks
  • Uncategorized
  • USPTO

Bookmarks

  • Edublogs Campus
  • Edublogs Help and Support
  • Edublogs.org
  • The Edublogger

Social

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • USF Blogs
© 2025 Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal. All rights reserved.
Hiero by aThemes
Powered by the University of San Francisco and Wordpress.
Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
Warning

Important: Read our blog and commenting guidelines before using the USF Blogs network.