The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

I think, sort of, another way of reading that is just as Jackson saying,

please do not read Tom and I as us upholding some common law version of section 230

in the absence of us actually saying anything about section 230.

So do not over read Tom.

It's sort of how I read it for all the sort of section 230 heads out there

who are trying to figure out to what extent Tom and I does or does not impact the thing that they really care about.

Which is not necessarily section 230 but the substantive question of whether or not platforms should ever be held liable for third party content.

I'm Benjamin Wittes and this is the LawFair podcast May 24, 2023.

The Supreme Court last week issued the biggest opinion in the history of the internet,

except that it didn't.

Rather, it issued an opinion in a case involving the anti-terrorism act and the justice against sponsors of terrorism act,

finding there was no cause of action and thus dismissed for further consideration the biggest case in the history of the internet.

It was a bit of a flame out for the big section 230 showdown at the Supreme Court.

We gathered in the virtual jungle studio to talk about it.

Scott R. Anderson, LawFair senior editor, Quinted Jurassic LawFair senior editor and Alan Rosenstein,

another LawFair senior editor, together they are the rational security crew.

...