There's A Good Reason Why Online Sites Shouldn't Be Liable For The Actions Of Its Users
from the not-this-again dept
Over the years, we've had plenty of stories concerning the liability of websites when users post defamatory or libelous content. The law (section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) is pretty clear, keeping site owners free of liability for the actions of their users. However, as yet another such case comes to light, this time in California, it seems like many people misunderstand why the law is written this way. That article has a typical quote from someone who doesn't seem to understand why the law is written this way, saying: "While protection to ferret out the truth is nice, I kind of wish the courts or Congress would revisit this law. It bothers me to run content online that is clearly defamatory but to get to say it's OK because we can't get sued. It's like a legal neener-neener." That statement is wrong. The law does not say "it's OK." What it does is make it clear who is liable: the individual who actually made the defamatory statements. That's all it's saying. It doesn't make sense for the owner of the site to be liable, since they are not the ones who are making the libelous statements. They may be easier to target and easier to sue, but they aren't the ones who made the statement, and thus, they should not be liable. So, this isn't a case where the law is "different" because "it's the internet" or where one side gets a free pass. The law simply clarifies that the liability for libel should be on those who actually made the libelous statement.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If someone in your house...
No, the twit that stated the remark is the one that should be in trouble. Now if it is your option to not have that person over again then great, but thats your choice about your property. If it was a public place, that might not be such an easy premise with which to contend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The law is correct
You go after the parites who made the comment & not the medium in which they were made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damn that new-fangled internet.
Exactly. That's all that needed to be said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Extending the metaphor
Many cities' ordnances require removal of graffiti within a specified period of time. Can one can be free from legal liable but still be required to note and remove the message?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you make a point of cryptographically signing all your posts then people can not make false comments by you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
spraypaint
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Graffitti ?
I think somebody should take the blame. It would be nicer if it were someone with deep pockets since our legal system heavily favors ppl with $s. i promise u i am no Commie.
Btw, whoever reads this will be thinking what i am on about... the sad fact is i do not know either. if u feel like bloggin me or making me sound like an 'asshat' as was netioned in on of the comments, pls feel free to do so. Its not my intention to hurt anyone, but its just the mood that i am in that makes me cranky
Cheers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
liability for site owners
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Graffitti ?
> i happened to come across this blog...
And blah blah blah.
Your nick becomes you. What are you, an idiot?
"I think somebody should take the blame." Yeah. Some one. Anyone. You don't care who, do you. Takling the blame. Yeah, that's all we need, and the world will be fun again, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yeah..
It's so often I have a form letter quoting the CDA already saved, just enter their name and send.
You have no idea how many people actually say "can't you censor my messages adn only send me the nice ones".
It's scary that people want censorship of their own messages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As for my two cents: I don't think sites should be held liable for the actions of their users, but they SHOULD be held responsible for their response to rule violations. If business owners, site operatiors, and individuals don't start developing some personal responsibility, then that responsibility WILL be legislated. I'd like to think people could do it voluntarily, but there are just too many people who decide they get to be jerks to the world 'because nobody can do anything about it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1, its a little thing called freedom of speech.
2, if its libal then it's libel to the individual that said it
now, there could be a sticky situation regarding the anonymity of the internt. Who's to say that the person who posted the comment is not in fact the owner of the site? IE, I create a web portal, host it with a host site, sign up as a bogus user and say what i want (safe in the fact that they cant touch me cos they dont know its me).
Other than that, 1 and 2 above apply ( just my 2 cents)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2 words
not monitoring uR "hosted" site demonstrates at VERY least complacency...
if a guest at a party became beligerent and abusive, wouldNt he/she be asked to leave? and wouldNt then an apology be in order to the rest of uR guests?
And as far as a public utility diseminating a damaging rhetoric goes...if it could be proved they had knowledge of it, you'd better believe they would share in the culpability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Damn that new-fangled internet.
Sure, the business isn't liable for the graffitti, since they didn't put it there, but they should be liable if they don't clean it up in a reasonable time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's Simple, but not THAT Simple
It's easy to confuse whether someone is liable for a libel charge, and whether they have liability at all for the actions of their users. That is a much more murkier topic.
I'd imagine that if YouTube didn't have a "hate speech" clause in its TOS, or if they didn't reserve the right not to host certain videos, there would be many lawsuits if they turned the other way on video "How to Guides" on, for instance, how to go about harming individuals with ethnicities or races the poster doesn't like.
What if some teenager films poisoning themselves or some other delayed act of suicide and posts it on one of these services before they actually die? There's a certain point where responsible service providers are compelled to act short of the point where they would meet a legal challenge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not quite the same
Only a good comparison if the business in question is a wall where people can exchange messages in spray paint. For J. Random Shopowner, grafitti isn't an intended or sanctioned use of his wall, whereas (say) the comments section on a blog is there to let people say stuff.
More kudos to this post: "Not ALL offensive posts can be monitored, but reported abuses should be dealt with."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Site liability for libel or slander
What if the owner of the wall that was tagged were to refuse to remove the libelous or slanderous graffitti? Would that become a tacit endorsement of the offense?
I think the owners have a responsibility to remove the libel or slander when its brought to their attention.
John
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: Grafitti
Good analogy. Business often allow and even encourage people to grafitti their walls, even going to the expense of hiring software developers to make walls that support grafitti.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am on both sides!!
If a user puts defamatory comments, of course the site owner is not responsible and its not his fault, but since he has provided a forum for user to comment atleast he should allow comments from user who are authorized to do so. He can even use some text scanning tools to check for absurdity. Its not a fool proof method but atleast there can be some laws mandating owners to check for atleast some level of defamatory comments. Of course its not possible for him to check all the comments but atleast he can try to use stuff that might make it difficult for those kindaa users to post such stuff. Likeways graffiti is not the responsibility of the owners but atleast they can provide some basic checks that might make it difficult for people to put graffiti.
On the other hand, The main reason net has revolutionised the world is because it knows no boudaries, once any sort of checking starts, it might be start of a much larger threat to the net which might undermine what is stood for in the first place.
May be i went a bit rational in putting myself forward, I am open for comments and criticism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Protecting everyone not just some.
Every company and organization is online doing business. No one is liable yet everyone wants something greed or power. So real who are they protecting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]