"To chill the valid exercise of freedom of speech." Click here: US CODE: Title 47,230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230---\ -000-.html>
(a) The Congress finds the following: (b) It is the policy of the United States (c) (1) 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. (2) Civil liability -- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ======================================= E.g.: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/ <http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/> At issue... medical doctors who publicly criticize what they consider quackery. The defendants had published or republished the e-mail on the internet. The trial court dismissed the case ... "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for redress of grievances ." The California Supreme Court in November, 2006, a landmark decision that is the first to interpret Section 230 defamation immunity as providing immunity to an individual internet "user" who is not a provider. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a number of internet corporations including Google, Yahoo!, and AOL filed briefs on behalf of the defendant arguing that only the originator of a defamatory statement published on the internet could be held liable. In the majority opinion, Justice Corrigan observed that the plain language of Section 230 shows that "Congress did not intend for an internet user to be treated differently than an internet provider." Both had immunity from liability for the re-publication of defamatory content on the internet. The court agreed that "subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech."... Moreover, the court agreed with Rosenthal in the interpretation of congressional intent: The congressional intent of fostering free speech on the internet supported the extension of Section 230 immunity to active individual users. It is they who provide much of the 'diversity of political discourse,' the pursuit of 'opportunities for cultural development,' and the exploration of 'myriad avenues for intellectual activity' that the statute was meant to protect. ============================================== In a message dated 9/15/2007 8:47:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NOW LISTEN UP: the destruction of my reputation. This was a plot ...From now on, anyone who even as much as hints of an impropriety in regard to me ... be certain before you say anything derogatory because I am left with no choice but to protect ... I would caution all you ...
