John R Levine wrote:
> > - slander, libel, and copyright liability for active moderators (like
> > newspapers, based on the Prodigy case)
>
> The Congress specifically reversed the Prodigy case via 47 USC 230 which
> says:
> "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.
>
> I am not aware of any case law that interprets this, though.
>
> Note this affects libel and slander, not copyright violations. The DMCA
> has lots to say about copyrighted material on web sites, but nothing that
> applies directly to mailing lists.
>
There is definitely case law on this. I don't have the citation handy, but
some idiot kept posting on AOL, in Oklahoma groups, that a businessman he disliked
was selling t-shirts CELEBRATING the Oklahoma City bombing. Needless to say, the
poor businessman, who wasn't doing any such thing, suffered telephone harassment
and meltdown and destruction of his business.
AOL, as usual, didn't do anything to help for weeks, and even managed to lose
the records so the businessman couldn't find who had made the attack on him.
AOL succeeded in having the action thrown out based on the quoted section of
the CDA. What's worse, AOL succeeded in having the case transferred to the federal
district court for its Northern Virgina home, thereby multiplying the expenses even
for someone who just wants to subpoena their records.
I believe there have been other cases enforcing this section, including state
court decisions. Frankly, about the next time I have a major problem coming from
AOL, I may try to test whether they at least have to show it is not one of their
employees causing the problem (by identifying who IS causing the problem) before
they can get dismissed out of the action.
AOL continues to be a blight on the internet.
Ted Smith
Denver
