Tortious Interference with Conduct of a Business The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 56, No. 5 (May, 1947), pp. 885-891 doi:10.2307/792964 This article consists of 7 page(s).
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0044-0094(194705)56%3A5%3C885% 3ATIWCOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Mario" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "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 ... > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
