Sarah Jones, a high school teacher and Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader, was the subject of several posts on TheDirty.com, a gossip website run by Nik Richie. Anonymous submissions accused Jones, among other things, of being promiscuous with many football players and suggested that she had a sexually transmitted disease. Richie then posted some of his own comments to the effect that Jones was a sex addict and unfit to be a teacher.

Jones sent over 27 emails to Richie asking him to remove the posts, but he refused. Jones sued The Dirty for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded her $38,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. The Dirty appealed, arguing that the CDA made it immune from liability because it did not create or develop the defamatory content. 

Questions:

1. Is The Dirty immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act?

2. What role did Richie play in developing the content that was posted as a profile of Jones?

3. Was Richie content provider?

4. Is Richie liable?

5. Why did Congress make ISPs immune from liability for material posted online by others under the Communications Decency Act?

6. Can Jones recover damages from anyone?