In this October 2007 ruling from the U.S. Court for the District of Arizona, the court ruled that, although, "At common law, publishers are generally liable for the defamatory statements authored by third-parties," the Communications Decency Act (CDA) shields gripe site operators from liability of this nature. In so doing, the court evaluated the function of "author," as opposed to, "publisher," noting that it is, “well established that notice of the unlawful nature of the [content] provided is not enough to make it the [website operator’s] own speech” (quoting Universal Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, 478 F.3d 413, 420 (1st Cir. 2007)) and that "Defendant’s failure to remove the three statements was an 'exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions' and does not defeat CDA immunity." Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997). Finally, the court noted, "minor and passive participation in the development of content will not defeat CDA immunity, which can even withstand more active participation."