Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 1 of 41
`
`NO. 22-15103, 22-15104
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`JOHN DOE #1 AND JOHN DOE #2,
`PLAINTIFFS– APPELLEES,
`
`V.
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`DEFENDANT– APPELLANT.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California
`The Honorable Joseph C. Spero
`District Court Case No. 21-cv-000485
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
`AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
`AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
`CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOLOGY, CENTER FOR LGBTQ
`ECONOMIC ADVANCEMENT & RESEARCH, FREEDOM UNITED, FREE
`SPEECH COALITION, POSITIVE WOMEN’S NETWORK-USA, REFRAME
`HEALTH AND JUSTICE, SEX WORKERS OUTREACH PROJECT LOS
`ANGELES, AND THE SEX WORKERS PROJECT OF THE URBAN
`JUSTICE CENTER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT–APPELLANT
`
`Jennifer Stisa Granick
`Counsel of Record
`AMERICAN CIVIL
` LIBERTIES UNION
` FOUNDATION
`39 Drumm Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 343-0758
`jgranick@aclu.org
`
`Vera Eidelman
`Laura Moraff
`Joshua Block
`AMERICAN CIVIL
` LIBERTIES UNION
` FOUNDATION
`125 Broad Street
`New York, NY 10004
`
`Samir Jain
`Emma Llansó*
`Caitlin Vogus
`CENTER FOR
` DEMOCRACY &
` TECHNOLOGY
`1401 K St. NW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20005
`*Of counsel
`
`(Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae listed on following page)
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 2 of 41
`
`Jacob A. Snow
`AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
` FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
` CALIFORNIA
`39 Drumm Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Minouche Kandel
`Zoe McKinney
`AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
` FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN
` CALIFORNIA
`1313 W. 8th Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 3 of 41
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26.1 and 29(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
`
`Procedure, amici curiae state that they do not have a parent corporation and that no
`
`publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of their stock.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 4 of 41
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST .................................................................................. 1
`
`SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE ...................................................................... 5
`
`FED. R. APP. P. 29(a)(4)(E) STATEMENT ............................................................. 5
`
`INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................... 6
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 9
`
`I. Serious First Amendment questions would arise if the Court construed
`FOSTA to allow civil liability based merely on constructive knowledge ....... 9
`
`II. Given the realities of how intermediaries moderate content, an actual
`knowledge standard is critical to ensuring that online expression remains
`free and robust ............................................................................................. 14
`
`A. Congress enacted Section 230 to foster freedom of expression online,
`informed by how intermediaries moderate content ................................ 15
`
`B. FOSTA has already harmed online speech and online communities ...... 17
`
`C. Expanding civil liability under FOSTA to reach less than knowing
`conduct would only exacerbate these problems ..................................... 20
`
`1. The district court’s interpretation of FOSTA creates a
`strong incentive for online intermediaries to over-remove user-
`generated content ............................................................................. 21
`
`2. The district court’s interpretation of FOSTA creates a perverse
`incentive for online intermediaries to deliberately ignore the content
`posted on their services .................................................................... 27
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 5 of 41
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR ELECTRONIC FILING ................................. 30
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 6 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Backpage.com LLC v. McKenna,
`881 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (W.D. Wash. 2012) ......................................................... 27
`
`Backpage.com, LLC v. Lynch,
`216 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2016) ..................................................................... 17
`
`Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................. 7
`
`Bd. of Educ. v. Pico,
`457 U.S. 853 (1982) .......................................................................................... 22
`
`Bond v. United States,
`572 U.S. 844 (2014) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`Carafano v. Metrosplash.com,
`339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 11
`
`Doe v. The Rocket Sci. Grp. LLC,
`No. 1:19-cv-5393 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 26, 2019) ...................................................... 26
`
`Erotic Serv. Provider Legal Educ. & Rsch. Proj. v. Gascon et al.,
`881 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 1
`
`Ginsberg v. New York,
`390 U.S. 629 (1968) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`J.B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC,
`No. 4:19-cv-7848, 2020 WL 4901196 (N.D. Cal. Aug 20, 2020) ....................... 26
`
`Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t. Recordings LLC,
`755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................. 15
`
`Lamont v. Postmaster Gen. of U.S.,
`381 U.S. 301 (1965) .......................................................................................... 22
`
`Lewis v. Time Inc.,
`83 F.R.D. 455 (E.D. Cal. 1979), aff’d, 710 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1983) ........... 11, 13
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 7 of 41
`
`M.L. v. craigslist, Inc.,
`No. 3:19-cv-6153, 2020 WL 6434845 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2020) .................. 26
`
`Manual Enters., Inc. v. Day,
`370 U.S. 478 (1962) .................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan,
`376 U.S. 254 (1964) .......................................................................................... 13
`
`NetChoice, LLC v. Att’y Gen. of Fla.,
`No. 21-12355, 2022 WL 1613291 (11th Cir. May 23, 2022) ............................... 1
`
`Reno v. ACLU,
`521 U.S. 844 (1997) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`Ripplinger v. Collins,
`868 F.2d 1043 (9th Cir. 1989) ..................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Smith v. California,
` 361 U.S. 147 (1959) ................................................................................... 10, 14
`
`United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct. Cent. Dist. of Cal.,
`858 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 12
`
`United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.,
`513 U.S. 64 (1994) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States,
`No. 18-1552 (D.D.C. 2022), appeal docketed, No. 22-5105 (D.C. Cir. Apr.
`28, 2022) ........................................................................................................... 13
`
`Zeran v. AOL,
`129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) ..............................................................7, 11, 15, 16
`
`BILLS & STATUTES
`
`U.S. Code, Title 18
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1591 et seq. ................................................................................ 7, 17
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) ....................................................................................... 7, 17
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 8 of 41
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(4) ...................................................................................... 17
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1595 ................................................................................................. 7
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2421A ............................................................................................ 17
`
`Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 et seq. ............................................................................... passim
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) .......................................................................................... 6
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(5)(A) ............................................................................... 7, 16
`
`H.R. 6928, 117th Cong. (2022) ................................................................................ 18
`
`S. 3758, 117th Cong. (2022) .................................................................................... 18
`
`S. Rep. No. 115-199 (2018) ..................................................................................... 16
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Abigail Moss, 'Such a Backwards Step': Instagram Is Now Censoring Sex
`Education Accounts, Vice (Jan. 8, 2021) ........................................................... 25
`
`Amber Madison, When Social-Media Companies Censor Sex Education,
`Atlantic (Mar. 4, 2015) ...................................................................................... 25
`
`Carey Shenkman, Dhanaraj Thakur & Emma Llansó,
`Cent. Dem. & Tech., Do You See What I See? (May 2021) ................................ 22
`
`Danielle Blunt & Ariel Wolf, Hacking//Hustling,
`Erased: The Impact of FOSTA-SESTA & the Removal of
`Backpage (2020) .......................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`EJ Dickson, Why Did Instagram Confuse These Ads Featuring LGBTQ People
`for Escort Ads?, Rolling Stone (July 11, 2019) .................................................. 24
`
`Gita Jackson, Tumblr is Trying to Win Back the Queer Audience It Drove Off,
`Vice (May 11, 2021) .......................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 9 of 41
`
`Helen Holmes, “First They Come for Sex Workers, Then They Come for
`Everyone,” Including Artists, Observer (Jan. 27, 2021) ..................................... 18
`
`Jake Ketchum & Laura LeMoon, What Sex Workers Have to Say About HIV
`After FOSTA/SESTA, TheBody (July 3, 2018) ................................................... 20
`
`Kendra Albert et al., FOSTA in Legal Context,
`52.3 Columbia Human Rights L. Rev. 1084 (2021) ........................................... 18
`
`Kendra Albert, Five Reflections from Four Years of FOSTA/SESTA,
`Cardozo Arts & Entm’t L. J. (forthcoming) ....................................................... 19
`
`Lacey-Jade Christie, Instagram Censored One of These Photos But Not the
`Other. We Must Ask Why, Guardian (Oct. 19, 2020) .......................................... 23
`
`Lifeway, Help Students Understand Sexual Purity .................................................. 26
`
`Madeleine Connors, StripTok: Where the Workers Are V.I.P.s, N.Y. Times (July
`29, 2021) ........................................................................................................... 25
`
`Mark Hay, How AI Lets Bigots and Trolls Flourish While Censoring
`LGBTQ+ Voices, Mic (Mar. 21, 2021) .............................................................. 24
`
`Melanie Ehrenkranz, British Cops Want to Use AI to Spot Porn—But It Keeps
`Mistaking Desert Pics for Nudes, Gizmodo (Dec. 18, 2017) .............................. 23
`
`Nafia Chowdhury, Stanford Freeman Spogli Inst. Int’l Studies,
`Automated Content Moderation: A Primer (Mar. 19, 2022) ......................... 22, 24
`
`Natasha Duarte & Emma Llansó, Cent. Dem. & Tech., Mixed Messages?
`The Limits of Automated Social Media Content Analysis (Nov. 28, 2017) ... 22, 23
`
`Nitasha Tiku, Craigslist Shuts Personal Ads for Fear of New Internet Law,
`WIRED (Mar. 23, 2018) .................................................................................... 19
`
`Nosheen Iqbal, Instagram ‘Censorship’ of Black Model’s Photo Reignites Claims
`of Race Bias, Guardian (Aug. 9, 2020) .............................................................. 23
`
`Planned Parenthood, Teen Council .......................................................................... 26
`
`Shannon Liao, Tumblr Will Ban All Adult Content on December 17th,
`Verge (Dec. 3, 2018) ......................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 10 of 41
`
`Survivors Against SESTA, Documenting Tech Actions ........................................... 19
`
`Susie Jolly et al., UNESCO, A Review of the Evidence: Sexuality Education
`for Young People in Digital Spaces (2020) ........................................................ 25
`
`U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-21-385, SEX TRAFFICKING: Online
`Platforms and Federal Prosecutions (2021). ..................................................... 17
`
`U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., Highlights of GAO-21-385 (2021) ......................... 18
`
`Zoe Kleinman, Fury over Facebook ‘Napalm Girl’ Censorship,
`BBC News (Sept. 9, 2016) ................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 11 of 41
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST
`
`Amicus curiae the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a
`
`nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to defending the
`
`principles embodied in the Federal Constitution and our nation’s civil rights laws.
`
`The ACLU of Northern California is the Northern California affiliate of the
`
`ACLU. The ACLU of Southern California is the Southern California affiliate of
`
`the ACLU. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has frequently appeared before
`
`the U.S. Supreme Court, this Court, and other federal courts in cases defending
`
`Americans’ free speech and freedom of association, including their exercise of
`
`those rights online. See e.g., Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
`
`(counsel); NetChoice, LLC v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., No. 21-12355, 2022 WL 1613291
`
`(11th Cir. May 23, 2022) (amici). Through its LGBTQ & HIV Projects, the ACLU
`
`advocates on behalf of the equal rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
`
`people, and people living with HIV. The ACLU also works to support sex workers
`
`against laws that discriminatorily target trans sex workers and sex workers of
`
`color, and laws that increase harm to sex workers. See e.g. Erotic Serv. Provider
`
`Legal Educ. & Rsch. Proj. v. Gascon et al., 881 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2018) (amici).
`
`The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) is a non-profit public
`
`interest organization. For more than twenty-five years, CDT has represented the
`
`public’s interest in an open, decentralized Internet and worked to ensure that the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 12 of 41
`
`constitutional and democratic values of free expression and privacy are protected
`
`in the digital age. CDT regularly advocates before legislatures, regulatory
`
`agencies, and courts in support of First Amendment rights on the Internet and
`
`other protections for online speech, including limits on intermediary liability for
`
`user-generated content.
`
`Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research (CLEAR) is a
`
`501(c)(4) non-profit organization. CLEAR’s mission is to empower LGBTQ+
`
`households, organizations, and communities with fair and equal access to
`
`LGBTQ-affirming financial education and services to meet under-served
`
`LGBTQ+ financial needs. CLEAR produces research and advocacy around
`
`LGBTQ+ consumer issues, including consumer data and privacy issues,
`
`promoting LGBTQ+ people’s ability to freely and authentically express
`
`themselves online using digital platforms, and ensuring their freedom from unfair
`
`policies that disproportionately target and exclude content about and created by
`
`LGBTQ+ people and communities.
`
`Freedom United is an international anti-trafficking organization that
`
`advocates for effective and rights-based approaches to preventing human
`
`trafficking and supporting victims and survivors. As an anti-trafficking
`
`organization, Freedom United advocates for full decriminalization of sex work in
`
`order to build resilience to trafficking. Decriminalization should extend to online
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 13 of 41
`
`spaces as well.
`
`Free Speech Coalition (FSC) is a non-profit trade and advocacy
`
`association defending the rights and freedoms of the adult industry and its
`
`workers. FSC fights for a world in which body sovereignty is recognized, sexual
`
`expression is destigmatized and sex work is decriminalized.
`
`Positive Women’s Network-USA (PWN-USA) is a national organization
`
`building power by and for women and people of trans experience living with HIV,
`
`with a focus on those communities most impacted by the epidemic. PWN-
`
`USA envisions a future in which our communities are no longer subject to over-
`
`policing, surveillance, and brutality from the criminal legal system; and where
`
`those with a history of interaction with the criminal legal system have full rights,
`
`dignity, and bodily autonomy. PWN-USA works to advance strategic
`
`collaboration between the HIV decriminalization movement and efforts to
`
`decriminalize sex work.
`
`Reframe Health and Justice (RHJ) is a collective of advocates working at
`
`the intersection of harm reduction, criminal-legal reform and healing. RHJ has
`
`over 30 years of collective experience specifically focused on the health and safety
`
`of sex workers across the country as community organizers, advocates for policy
`
`change, service providers and experts offering training and technical assistance.
`
`As harm reductionists, RHJ works on developing and disseminating harm
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 14 of 41
`
`reduction tools and information for people who trade sex to combat interpersonal
`
`violence, exploitation and trafficking and poor health outcomes.
`
`Sex Workers Outreach Project Los Angeles (SWOPLA) is a peer-based
`
`sex worker support and mutual aid group, whose members and community saw
`
`firsthand how FOSTA/SESTA made it harder for people to stay safe and survive.
`
`In their capacity as sex workers and in their capacity as mutual aid and harm
`
`reduction organizers, SWOPLA has seen how essential it is to have access to both
`
`private & encrypted channels of communication and to uncensored public
`
`channels of communication. SWOPLA has also seen how expanded enforcement
`
`of prohibitions meant to 'indirectly' curb sex trafficking end up increasing violence
`
`against sex workers, trafficking victims, and other survivors of abuse alike, by
`
`directly empowering abuse at the hands of law enforcement and other third parties
`
`and by creating an environment where communication, support, and services are
`
`more difficult to safely access.
`
`The Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center (SWP) is a
`
`national organization that defends the human rights of sex workers by
`
`destigmatizing and decriminalizing people in the sex trades through free legal
`
`services, education, research, and policy advocacy. As one of the only US
`
`organizations meeting the needs of both sex workers and trafficking victims, SWP
`
`serves a marginalized community that few others reach.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 15 of 41
`
`SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE
`
`Counsel for Defendant-Appellant and Plaintiffs-Appellees consent to the
`
`filing of this brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(2).
`
`FED. R. APP. P. 29(A)(4)(E) STATEMENT
`
`Amici declare that:
`
`1. no party’s counsel authored the brief in whole or in part;
`
`2. no party or party’s counsel contributed money intended to fund
`
`preparing or submitting the brief; and
`
`3. no person, other than amici, their members, or their counsel,
`
`contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 16 of 41
`
`INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Online intermediaries—including platforms like Twitter—play an essential
`
`role in facilitating the speech of hundreds of millions of people. In part, they play
`
`the role that book, magazine, and video stores and distributors traditionally played
`
`in enabling public access to educational information, art, political speech, and
`
`more—only at an even more massive scale. Search engines like Google and
`
`DuckDuckGo direct people to content; social media sites like Facebook, LinkedIn,
`
`and Pinterest allow people to post their own content; and web-infrastructure
`
`services like Amazon Web Services and Cloudflare make it possible to access
`
`content online. A myriad of other intermediaries are also essential facilitators of
`
`online speech.
`
`Recognizing the risks that imposing open-ended liability on such actors
`
`could pose to online communication, Congress passed Section 230 of the
`
`Communications Decency Act in 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”). The law
`
`immunizes interactive computer service providers, including the kinds of
`
`intermediaries identified above, from most civil liability and state law criminal
`
`charges based on the speech of their users. As this Court and others have
`
`recognized, Section 230(c)(1) protects against liability for the “exercise of a
`
`publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 17 of 41
`
`withdraw, postpone or alter content.” Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir.
`
`1997); Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009).
`
`In 2018, Congress amended Section 230 through the Allow States and
`
`Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act/Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act
`
`(“FOSTA”). FOSTA expanded the existing criminal provisions codified in 18
`
`U.S.C. § 1591(a) and created a new federal crime related to sex trafficking. Most
`
`relevant to this case, it also amended Section 230 to permit civil causes of action
`
`for participating in a sex trafficking venture under 18 U.S.C. § 1595—but only “if
`
`the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of [18 U.S.C. § 1591].” 47
`
`U.S.C. § 230(e)(5)(A). Although Section 1595 allows for liability where a
`
`participant “knew or should have known” the venture was illegal, Section 1591
`
`requires knowing participation or, for offenses not related to advertising a person
`
`for sex trafficking, reckless disregard.
`
`Thus, one of the issues in this case is what level of knowledge a service
`
`provider must have to lose immunity under Section 230(e)(5)(A) and thereby be
`
`subject to civil liability: constructive knowledge, as under Section 1595, or actual
`
`knowledge, as under Section 1591.1 The court below held that intermediaries can
`
`
`1 Amici write only to address the constitutional implications of the district court’s
`view that FOSTA removed Twitter’s Section 230 immunity based on an allegation
`that the company had constructive knowledge of sex trafficking on its service.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 18 of 41
`
`be held civilly liable for participating in a sex trafficking venture without actual
`
`knowledge of sex trafficking occurring on their services.
`
`This Court must reverse that ruling. If permitted to stand, it would raise
`
`serious First Amendment questions. Courts have historically recognized that the
`
`scienter requirement imposed on intermediaries, including booksellers and
`
`distributors, is a constitutional issue, given the unique role these entities play in
`
`facilitating speech. Imposing liability on them can have a severe, unconstitutional
`
`chilling effect that substantially diminishes the universe of materials available to
`
`the public.
`
`The same is equally, if not more, true for online intermediaries, which act as
`
`funnels for billions of pieces of content every day. Given the scale of the speech
`
`they enable, imposing liability on online intermediaries on the basis of merely
`
`constructive knowledge would have disastrous consequences for users:
`
`Intermediaries would choose either to remove protected, societally beneficial
`
`content to avoid the threat of liability—thereby depleting the full scope of speech
`
`and information available to the public—or they would opt to remain willfully
`
`ignorant of content posted on their services to avoid having any possible awareness
`
`(and therefore arguably constructive knowledge) of illegal content appearing
`
`there—thereby foregoing content moderation on their sites.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 19 of 41
`
`To avoid those serious constitutional questions and dire practical effects, the
`
`Court should adopt Defendant-Appellant’s interpretation of FOSTA and reverse
`
`the district court’s partial denial of the motion to dismiss.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Serious First Amendment questions would arise if the Court construed
`FOSTA to allow civil liability based merely on constructive knowledge.
`
`The principle of constitutional avoidance holds that courts should adopt a
`
`statutory construction that avoids “grave and doubtful constitutional questions.”
`
`Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 869 (2014) (Scalia, J. concurring). Construing
`
`FOSTA to allow online intermediaries to face civil liability without any actual
`
`knowledge or awareness of sex trafficking occurring on their sites would raise
`
`serious First Amendment questions. This Court can and should avoid determining
`
`what scienter requirement is robust enough to avoid chilling speech and
`
`undermining First Amendment interests by holding that FOSTA does not impose
`
`liability on intermediaries based on constructive knowledge.
`
`Though the Supreme Court has not squarely determined what level of
`
`scienter a plaintiff must show to hold a distributor liable for carrying obscenity or
`
`child pornography, it has made clear that the answer implicates the First
`
`Amendment. This is because the imposition of liability with too low a scienter
`
`requirement “tends to impose a severe limitation on the public’s access to
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 20 of 41
`
`constitutionally protected matter” by “stifl[ing] the flow of democratic expression
`
`and controversy at one of its chief sources.” Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147,
`
`152–53 (1959); see also Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 644 (1968)
`
`(declining to further define the level of scienter required by the First Amendment
`
`where a New York statute prohibiting the knowing sale of obscenity to minors had
`
`been construed by the state’s highest court to reach “not innocent but calculated
`
`purveyance of filth”). As the Court has explained in the context of traditional
`
`distributors of third-party speech, “if [a] bookseller is criminally liable without
`
`knowledge of the contents . . . he will tend to restrict the books he sells to those he
`
`has inspected.” Smith, 361 U.S. at 153. And “[i]f the contents of bookshops and
`
`periodical stands were restricted to material of which their proprietors had made an
`
`inspection, they might be depleted indeed.” Id.
`
`This Court has also recognized that imposition of liability on distributors
`
`with too low a scienter requirement has chilling effects. In Ripplinger v. Collins,
`
`the Court determined that, for distributor liability, a “jury [must] find that the
`
`defendant knew of the ‘character or nature’ of the material” and that “a ‘suspicion’
`
`of one scene of nudity or sexual activity” is not enough. 868 F.2d 1043, 1055 (9th
`
`Cir. 1989). Much like the Supreme Court, this Court was motivated by its concern
`
`that imposing the latter standard “would require a bookseller to examine personally
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 21 of 41
`
`any book he had reason to believe contained sexual conduct to determine if it was
`
`obscene.” Id. at 1056.
`
`Courts’ observation that imposing liability on intermediaries has a severe
`
`chilling effect applies with even more force to interactive service providers such as
`
`Twitter. Historically, even when courts considered the universe of content
`
`available via a single magazine or bookstore, they recognized the fact that “the
`
`distributor normally carries a multitude of [content],” meaning that their “self-
`
`censorship carries potentially more pervasive consequences.” Lewis v. Time Inc.,
`
`83 F.R.D. 455, 465 (E.D. Cal. 1979), aff’d, 710 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1983). This is
`
`even truer online, where “[i]nteractive computer services have millions of users,”
`
`making “[t]he amount of information communicated via [them] . . . staggering.”
`
`Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, 339 F.3d 1119, 1123–24 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting
`
`Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330–31).
`
`As this Court recognized nearly two decades ago, “[i]t would be impossible
`
`for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible
`
`problems. Faced with potential liability for each message . . . interactive computer
`
`service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of
`
`messages posted.” Id. at 1124. That is why “[t]he specter of [] liability in an area of
`
`such prolific speech [has] an obvious chilling effect.” Id. Since this Court issued
`
`that opinion, the amount of content posted online has increased exponentially, and
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 22 of 41
`
`the ramifications of imposing liability on intermediaries are no longer hypothetical.
`
`See Section II.C.
`
`At the same time, information intermediaries typically have little control
`
`over the content users post on their services—and that, too, contributes to the
`
`chilling effect that imposing liability without actual knowledge would have. This is
`
`one reason that the First Amendment distinguishes between creators of illegal
`
`materials and those who make them available. For example, “[t]hose who arrange
`
`for minors to appear in sexually explicit materials are in a far different position
`
`from those who merely handle the visual images after they are fixed on paper,
`
`celluloid or magnetic tape.” United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct. Cent. Dist. of Cal., 858
`
`F.2d 534, 543, n.6 (9th Cir. 1988). “While it would undoubtedly chill the
`
`distribution of books and films if sellers were burdened with learning . . . the
`
`content of all of the materials they carry . . ., producers are in a position to know or
`
`learn” that information. Id.; see also United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513
`
`U.S. 64, 77 n.5 (1994) (explaining that a video store must have a higher scienter
`
`than a producer in order to be liable for distributing child pornography because of
`
`“the reality that producers are more conveniently able to ascertain” information
`
`about the content).2
`
`
`2 It is also worth noting that individuals and organizations engaging in
`constitutionally protected online speech are challenging FOSTA’s constitutionality
`in the courts. For example, the plaintiffs in Woodhull Freedom Foundation v.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 22-15103, 06/10/2022, ID: 12468697, DktEntry: 28, Page 23 of 41
`
`
`
`The fact that the liability at issue here is civil does not change the analysis.
`
`“What a State may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal statute
`
`is likewise beyond the reach of its ci