DISCLAIMER: I'm a software engineer, not a lawyer. The information
provided herein is not legal advice, but is for informational purposes
only. If you need professional legal advice, seek a real lawyer. The
opinions expressed herein are my personal opinions. Discussion of laws
below pertain to the U.S. legal system. UK and Australian laws
certainly differ.
My apologies to those outside the United States for whom discussion of
the U.S. Code [1] does not apply. I hope I'm not straying too far
off-charter with this discussion, though it is on-topic for this
thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> All that these cases prove is that there is no special exemption from
> libel exposure on the net. No big surprise and no change in the law.
I agree; the author of the information is just as liable whether he
publishes it in the _Weekly World News_ or in alt.spam.spam.spam.
But the 'Good Samaritan' provision of 47 USC 230 [2] states "No
provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the
publisher of any information provided by another information content
provider."
There seems to be some thinking that, in spite of this provision, the
provider can be held liable if they continue to publish the material
once they are made aware of it. BUT, federal courts have also ruled
that Section 230 relieves ISPs of liability even when they actually
have knowledge that illegal defamatory content is being communicated
over their systems. [3]
Conversely, USC 230 also says that no provider can be held liable for
any action it voluntarily takes in good faith to restrict access to or
availability of material that the provider considers to be obscene,
lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise
objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally
protected. That means ISPs can legally filter material, and they can
remove webpages they consider offensive.
ObListManagement: Umm, list-owners would not be considered a "provider
of an interactive computer service" in USC 230. :-( So while the ISP
is protected, the listowner probably is not. We may fall under the
defintion of "information content provider," I suppose. How many
listowners carry some sort of umbrella policy or professional liability
policy?
Richard Masoner
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ENDNOTES
[1] A nifty search engine of of the US Code can be found at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ Unfortunately, the information
is a couple of years old and doesn't contain many of the newer
provisions related to telecom law, such as section 230.
[2] Title 47 of the U.S. Code regulates "Telegraphs, Telephones, and
Radiotelephones." Unfortunately, I could not find the text of section
230 on the Web, probably because this law is so new.
[3] US 4th Circuit of Appeals, Zeran v. America Online Inc, no.
97-1523. See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ See also Doe v. America
Online http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Doe_v_AOL.html
