![payday 2 assault in progress payday 2 assault in progress](https://modworkshop.net/mydownloads/previews/preview_34731_1527775168_0a8ffa97686c2fe0a3fb1450eacd9632.gif)
Section 230(c)(1) prohibits claims that treat Armslist, an interactive computer service provider, as the publisher or speaker of information posted by a third party on its website.
![payday 2 assault in progress payday 2 assault in progress](https://i.imgur.com/29sb0pL.png)
We disagree, and conclude that § 230(c)(1) requires us to dismiss Daniel's complaint against Armslist. § 230 (2018), the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, did not bar Daniel's claims against Armslist for facilitating Radcliffe's illegal purchase.
![payday 2 assault in progress payday 2 assault in progress](https://modworkshop.net/mydownloads/previews/preview_34731_1528965878_bccde6548026bccb24a97f05fcb2e709.gif)
The court found in favor of Armslist, specifically citing Section 230. The Copia Institute (a Mike Masnick joint) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Armslist, asking the court to reject arguments that would carve some very damaging holes in Section 230 protections. The plaintiffs hoped to bypass Section 230 immunity with arguments that centered on negligence. The shooting may have been on the mass shooter, but Armslist was apparently an accomplice because its marketplace allowed someone who shouldn't have had access to guns to acquire one. Survivors of a mass shooting in Wisconsin tried to hold Armslist directly responsible for the criminal act, arguing that the site's facilitation of sales that bypassed local regulations on gun sales (mainly background checks) allowed the shooter to arm himself illegally. It decided Section 230 immunity applied to the buying and selling of guns via a third-party platform, Armslist. Two years ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court handed down a pretty important decision, only somewhat tempered by its limited jurisdiction.