Of particular concern in my decision not to pursue my lawsuit against Quora is the fact that courts have recently made rulings that immunize tech companies for acts of censorship and discrimination even when they are found to have practiced unlawful discrimination or restriction of legitimate speech.

According to my advocate, the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) has been interpreted by recent decisions in the Northern District of California to trump federal civil rights statutes as well as UNRUH Civil Rights Act’s protections against discrimination on the basis of political opinion.

This expansive interpretation of the CDA not only ignores the default rule which federal courts normally impose that conflicting statutes should be reconciled whenever possible, but goes beyond the original intent of the CDA, which was to shield internet service providers from responsibility for the offensive or indecent posts of third parties. Current law in the Northern District holds that as long as internet service providers are acting as censors as opposed to the authors of content, they are immune from censorship activities, whether or not those activities constitute unlawful discrimination or the restriction of legitimate speech.

I am looking at ways to challenge this law.