2:18-cv-02573-DCN Date Filed 02/08/19 Entry Number 17 Page 6 of 11 as the Defendant) shall be held liable on account of “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider . . . considers to be . . . excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected . . . .”. Moreover, courts have held that interactive computer services (such as the Defendant here) act in the role of “publishers” when screening or deleting content. Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 420 (5th Cir. 2008)[“[D]ecisions relating to the monitoring, screening, and deletion of content [are] actions quintessentially related to a publisher’s role”] (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the violation alleged by a Plaintiff derives from the Defendant’s status or conduct as a publisher, § 230(c)(1) of the CDA prohibits liability.4 Fields, et al. v. Twitter, Inc., 217 F.Supp. 3d 1116, 1121 (N.D.Ca. 2016), citing Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1101-1102 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Fair Housing Counsel of San Fernando Valley v. RoomMates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1170-1171 (9th Cir. 2008) [Noting that § 230(c)(1) applies to “any activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online,” and that “determine[ing] whether or not to prevent [the] posting of material by third parties is “precisely the kind of activity” covered by the statute]. Plaintiff’s contention in his response brief that the CDA does not protect the Defendant here because the Defendant is neither a publisher nor an editor with respect to the Plaintiff, but is nothing more than a platform upon which Plaintiff publishes and edits his own 4 Section 230(c)(1) provides: 1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No 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. 6