Attacks on anonymous speech via attacks on Internet services' immunity --Lauren--
----- Forwarded message from David Farber <[email protected]> ----- Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 12:57:40 -0500 From: David Farber <[email protected]> Subject: [IP] A new attack on section 230 immunity Reply-To: [email protected] To: ip <[email protected]> Begin forwarded message: From: "Paul Levy" <[email protected]> Date: January 9, 2011 12:51:09 PM EST To: <[email protected]> Subject: A new attack on section 230 immunity Stanley Fish published a column in the Times online edition touting a new book from scholars primarily associated with the University of Chicago, who complain at length about all the nasty anonymous expression that can be found online and whose remedy is, apparently, to gut the immunity provided for the providers of interactive computer services by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/anonymity-and-the-dark-side-of-the-internet/. In this essay, I pick apart their argument, which so far as I can tell proceeds from ignorance about what the law currently is - that someone who is defamed online can readily enforce a subpoena to identify the defamer so long as they have a good factual and legal case for defamation. http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2011/01/stanley-fish-leads-the-charge-against-immunity-for-internet-hosts-but-ignores-the-costs.html I sent the piece to those whose opinions I criticized and invited them to respond. They have not yet responded publicly, but what I have learned to date tends to confirm my impression that they were basically ignorant of the "Dendrite" line of cases about the procedures for piercing anonymity when they went after section 230. Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ pfir mailing list http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
