This writ of certiorari centers around the proper scope of immunity conferred by subsection (c) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("CDA"), Title 47, United States Code, Section 230 (entitled "Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material") to interactive computer service ("ICS") providers ("ICSP").

1. CONDUCT/ACTIONS –Does Section 230(c)(1) immunize any/all conduct/actions of an ICSP from civil liability arising out of its actions and decisions to de-publish/re-publish/alter content, regardless of its motivation, including commercial benefit, anti-competition, bad faith, and/or other non-Good Samaritan reasons, which such conduct would otherwise be actionable outside the Internet ether?

2. MOTIVATION –Does the Section 230(c) "Good Samaritan" general provision apply generally to all of Section 230(c) (at the threshold of the immunity analysis) as the statute is written, or is the Section 230(c) "Good Samaritan" "intelligible principle" only applicable to Section 230(c)(2) as the District Court held here (which such issue the Ninth Circuit declined to address or remand)?

3. CONSTITUTIONALITY –Whether Section 230(c)'s protection of ICSPs can supersede constitutionally protected individual rights; i.e., does Section 230(c) immunize an ICSP (Respondent, Facebook, Inc., "Facebook") from taking the property and/or liberty (speech) of an ICS user ("ICSU") (Petitioner, Jason Fyk, "Fyk") without due process (and, separately, free speech) rights?

Proper scope of immunity under Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act