Re:A Supreme Court Case That Could Give Tech Giants More Power
by shkkmo on Monday March 05, 2018 @11:08PM
(#16526791)
> Suggesting that US law makes a company legally culpable for all interaction with that company's website has no basis in our legal system. That isn't how our law has ever worked.
As far as I can tell (and I am not a lawyer) you are wrong about this and there is case law to prove it. As wikipedia says:
"The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision."
And here is the link to the court decision being referenced:
> Any small site taking reasonable measures to manage their site would be fine.
The case law indicates the opposite. Without 230, small sites would have to take NO MEASURE to manage other peoples content on their site. As soon as they took any "reasonable measures" to restrict that content they would assume the role of publisher and become liable.
As far as I can tell (and I am not a lawyer) you are wrong about this and there is case law to prove it. As wikipedia says:
"The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision."
And here is the link to the court decision being referenced:
https://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Stratton_Oakmont_Porush_v_Pro...
> Any small site taking reasonable measures to manage their site would be fine.
The case law indicates the opposite. Without 230, small sites would have to take NO MEASURE to manage other peoples content on their site. As soon as they took any "reasonable measures" to restrict that content they would assume the role of publisher and become liable.