Thread by @benjaminwittes

Whenever I speak about Section 230, I always use the chat site Omegle as the prototype of a site that should not be immune for third-party posted content. I am so glad *someone*--the redoubtable @cagoldberglaw--is finally testing whether 230 really protects Omegle.

I have my doubts that this suit will survive a motion to dismiss under current law. But if you can read it without seething rage, and an overpowering sense that it *should* survive such a motion, I would love to hear a coherent argument that what Omegle...

does deserves blanket immunity from liability. drive.google.com/file/d/1xVR72R…

For those who don't know Omegle, it is a web site whose slogan is "Talk to Strangers!" Here is how @daniellecitron and I described in a number of years ago:
ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewconten…

@cagoldberglaw's suit describes a campaign of #sextortion against her then-11-year-old client by a predator on the site, which gamely matches children with adults no questions asked.

I urge you to read the complaint, particularly but not exclusively if you are a congressional staffer or member of Congress, and ask yourself whether it is rational that Omegle will probably not even need to defend against this suit.

And thanks to @cagoldberglaw for her work.

#sextortion #section230