Monsarrat v. Newman, 28 F.4th 314

From ~2002–2017 a Davis Square neighborhood community used LiveJournal; anonymous users posted allegedly defamatory comments about Jonathan Monsarrat (e.g., calling him a "sexual predator").
In 2017 LiveJournal changed its terms to comply with Russian law; Newman, a moderator, migrated the forum to Dreamwidth by copying full discussion threads verbatim.
The reposted threads on Dreamwidth included the allegedly defamatory third‑party posts and a February 2010 post authored and later registered by Monsarrat with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Monsarrat sued Newman in federal court for Massachusetts defamation and copyright infringement; Newman moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The district court dismissed both claims, finding Newman immune under 47 U.S.C. § 230 for the defamation claim and entitled to a fair‑use defense on the copyright claim; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Newman is liable for republication of allegedly defamatory third‑party posts or is immune under § 230	Monsarrat: reposting to a new platform made Newman responsible for the defamatory content and thus an "information content provider" not entitled to § 230 immunity	Newman: he is a "user" of an interactive computer service who merely reposted third‑party content verbatim and so is protected by § 230 from state‑law publisher liability	Held: § 230 bars the defamation claim — Newman was not a developer of the third‑party content and the claim treats him as the publisher, so immunity applies
Whether Newman's verbatim copying of Monsarrat's registered post infringed copyright or is protected by fair use	Monsarrat: reposting his registered post was non‑transformative and harmed his copyright interest; bad faith republication to aid defamation undermines fair use	Newman: his reproduction was noncommercial, at least marginally transformative (preservation/migration of forum), the work is factual and already published, and there is no plausible market harm	Held: Fair use applies — factors (purpose/character, nature, amount, market effect) overall favor Newman, so the copyright claim fails

Universal Commc'n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir.) (sets § 230 three‑part test and directs broad construction of immunity)
Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.) (editorial decisions about what content to publish fall within publisher functions covered by § 230)
Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir.) (dissemination of third‑party content to another platform does not strip § 230 immunity)
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (discusses traditional editorial functions—including publication decisions—under § 230)
Campbell v. Acuff‑Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (Sup. Ct.) (framework for fair use and transformative‑use inquiry)
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (Sup. Ct.) (market harm is critical in fair use analysis)
Núñez v. Caribbean Int'l News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.) (fair use is flexible; verbatim copying can still be fair if necessary to purpose)
Soc'y of Holy Transfig. Monastery, Inc. v. Gregory, 689 F.3d 29 (1st Cir.) (discusses transformative purpose and commerciality in fair use)
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir.) (displaying copyrighted material in a different, historical context can be transformative)