992 F. Supp. 44 - Blumenthal v. Drudge’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 31 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Batzel v. Smith (2003), FC Investment Group LC v. IFX Markets, Ltd. (2008)
10 federal appellate · 31 district · 19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union · Rita v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]s a matter of policy, `Congress decided not to treat providers of interactive computer services like other information providers such as newspapers, magazines or television and radio stations, all of which may be held liable for publishing obscene or defamatory material written or prepared by others.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress has made a different policy choice by providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.