Batzel

dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc.

I dissent from the denial of en banc review of this case. I remain convinced that the panel majority’s interpretation of the statutory immunity found in 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c) is wrong in light of Congress’s intent, and will needlessly harm persons defamed on the Internet. Section 230(c) states: “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Immunity thus requires, inter alia, that the communication must have been “information provided by another information content provider.” “[I]n-formation content provider,” in turn, is defined as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” 47 U.S.C. § 230 (e)(3).

The panel agreed that if a person who posted defamatory material on the Internet “developed]” that material, that person would become the information content provider of the material and lose § 230(c) immunity. The panel majority held that Cremers did not “develop! ]” the…

Order; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge GOULD

ORDER

The majority of the panel has voted to deny appellee’s petition for rehearing. Judge Berzon has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Can-by so recommends. Judge Gould has voted to grant the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge of the court requested a vote on en banc rehearing. The majority of the active judges have voted to deny rehearing the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35(f).

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Judge Gould’s dissent from denial of en banc rehearing is filed concurrently herewith.