Passed in 1996, the law grants immunity to providers of “interactive computer services” for content that is published by its users. It’s one of the reasons that laypeople find stories about the law so compelling, how the cases recontextualize names they already know.

When litigants step into a courtroom they often aren’t just trying to win their case but trying to set precedent for those that come behind them. Still, it’s always fun to look at the ways that the law overlaps with pop culture. When passing the act, Congress made it clear that it had the express intention of overturning the Prodigy ruling, making it effectively retroactive. This is often how legal history is written. This, in turn, caused an uproar in Congress as many felt that these two decisions were backwards.

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. This resulted in two Congressmen, Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Christopher Cox (R-CA) to add Section 230 to the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which itself was part of the Telecommuncations Act of 1996. Mark Hanna: No. Given what we know about Stratton Oakmont today, it should be no surprise that they would be an aggressive litigant and, as part of that, be a candidate to make a bit of legal history. I am just a legally-minded Webmaster/Writer frustrated with the plague of plagiarism online and doing something about it. The case involved a Los Angeles bookstore owner that was convicted of violating a city ordinance regarding the sale and distribution of “obscene” material. Jordan Belfort: Wow. The law has been credited with enabling much of the modern internet. The Wolf of Wall Street’s Real Legacy To be clear, Stratton Oakmont didn’t set out to help create a law that would protect online service providers. It’s exactly what so many aggressive litigants do. That case, Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., dealt with an anonymous user that posted allegedly defamatory information on Compuserve’s forums. Jordan Belfort: Mm-hmm. Do you know what fugazi is? Review sites like Yelp or Google business listings would be completely untenable. Four years later, Compuserve competitor Prodigy was hit with a similar lawsuit. Those are rookie numbers in this racket.
Their goal was very much the opposite, to sue and receive damages from such a provider for items posted by their users. In short, it separates the provider from the speaker and ensures that the provider of the service cannot be held accountable for the actions its users (speakers). However, outside of those exceptions, the law is extremely broad and includes defamation, discriminatory housing and even terrorism. It really could have been anyone. Prodigy was found liable specifically because it did perform moderation of its forums. The Wolf of Wall Street is a memoir by former stockbroker and trader Jordan Belfort, first published in September 2007 by Bantam Books, then adapted into a 2013 film of the same name (directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Belfort). Details File Size: 2519KB Duration: 1.500 sec Dimensions: 498x371 Created: 5/6/2020, 7:53:22 PM Even though they were victorious in the court battle, they lost the war. In the 1990s, the internet was still very new and legal challenges involving it were exceedingly rare. In the end, this is purely trivia and an interesting quirk in the nation’s legal history. The Smith ruling was specifically cited in it. For the most part, courts just attempted to apply laws passed for the physical world to the digital one though the results were often inelegant. This type of litigation was almost inevitable and, if it hadn’t been Stratton Oakmont, it would have been another company or individual. The Academy Award-winning actor graduated UT in 1993. I, myself, I jerk off at least twice a day.

To be clear, Stratton Oakmont didn’t set out to help create a law that would protect online service providers. ... [Jordan poses for the picture shaking hands with the reporter and we see a photo appear with the headline “The Wolf of Wall Street”] Jordan Belfort: [voice over] A total f**king hatchet job. This case was cited in a 1991 case against the online service provider Compuserve. There’s little doubt that Section 230 is one of the most important laws in terms of its impact on the internet. Mark Hanna: It’s all a fugazi. The most notable include the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which requires such providers to remove copyright infringing material after notification, and the recent FOSTA-SESTA regulations, which modified the law to with regards to sex trafficking.

This shield for providers has proved to be remarkably effective at protecting providers.

Stratton Oakmont simply got there first. Number one rule of Wall Street. The University of Texas will display a section of Matthew McConaughey cutouts during Saturday’s home game against TCU. Though the bulk of the CDA would go on to be ruled unconstitutional in the case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, Section 230 remained in effect.

Hero Forge and the Controversy Over Miniature Copyright, Video Addendum: The Bizarre Copyright of Doctor Who. While it’s funny to think about how the firm features in The Wolf of Wall Street unintentionally helped create Section 230. Nobody, I don’t care if you’re Warren Buffet or if you’re Jimmy Buffet, nobody knows if a stock is gonna go up, down, sideways or in fucking circles, least of all stock brokers, right? Sites such as Facebook and Twitter would never be able to police their platforms adequately to avoid liability without it. However, that case was decided in favor of Compuserve because the company did not do any moderation of its forums (at least not directly). This time the results were the opposite. To that end, Stratton Oakmont may be most famous for the movie, but its broadest impact will always be Section 230. Special Thanks: I want to give thanks to Patrick O’Keefe for tipping me off to this. Please check your email and confirm your subscription. © 2005-2020 Plagiarism Today All Rights Reserved, A Site About Plagiarism and Content Misuse Online, especially as it pertains to political bias. Though the law has found controversy more recently, especially as it pertains to political bias, it has largely shaped the internet we have today. Their goal was very much the opposite, to sue and receive damages from such a provider for items posted by their users. The Prodigy case is Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. What that means is that the company that sued Prodigy and won (only to later have it overturned) is Stratton Oakmont, the firm that would be featured in the film 18 years later. So, what does any of this have to do with The Wolf on Wall Street? It’s one of the reasons that many cases that would have been better resolved out of court often make it to a trial, decision, appeal and so on.
To be clear, there are exceptions to it. However, the Supreme Court ruled that, since he was a distributor and not a publisher, he had no way of knowing what was in that book. Congress saw their victory not as a sign that the law was working as intended, but as a sign it was doing quite the opposite. Signup to get FREE daily updates on copyright and plagiarism news. I am not a lawyer. However, whether you love it or hate it, one interesting piece of trivia is that we might not have the law at all if it hadn’t been for The Wolf of Wall Street, or rather, the film’s inspiration.

According to Jeff Kosseff, the author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, the judgment that governed liability for third parties prior to Section 230 was Smith v. California.