Court Reinforces, And Even Expands, Site Owners' Immunity For Other People's Content
from the no-libel-for-you dept
The Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, was, like so many other government attempts to regulate technology, something of a mess. However, it does have one bright spot: Section 230, which generally says that site providers aren't liable for content on their sites which they didn't post. Typically, this refers to things like comments and forums. For instance, if a commenter here made a libelous or otherwise defamatory statement, they're liable for it, not Techdirt. This has been held up several times in various courts, because it makes sense to target the actual source of the defamation, not the platform provider. There have been repeated efforts to narrow the scope of Section 230, but a recent decision seems to have expanded it a little bit.A federal judge in Texas has ruled that Yahoo wasn't liable in a civil case for an child pornography online group set up and moderated by a user on its servers. The user's in jail on criminal charges stemming from the group, but a civil suit targeted the ISP with a variety of claims, though the judge ruled that Section 230 gave them immunity, even though it was alleged Yahoo had broken the law by hosting child porn. This means that people can't file civil cases against site owners or hosting providers, and use the allegation of criminal conduct as a way to get around Section 230. The law was also intended to foster self-regulation of obscene and illegal content by service providers, and immunity is an important aspect of that. Lawsuits often try to allege that if a service provider regulates any content on their servers, they're legally liable for all of it -- something that's wholly impractical, particularly for a service the size of Yahoo Groups. The judge rightly notes in the decision (PDF) that to allow suits on either basis (alleging criminal activity, or that any level of regulation creates liability) would have a chilling effect on online speech, which is something Congress didn't want to do in enacting the law. To do so would not just stifle online speech, but it would also stifle innovation -- since any sort of interactive or user-generated content could create an impossible level of legal liability for site owners.
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
Of course, a financial institution is making money off these funds and customers, but then again, so are sites like YouTube and Yahoo.
Again, these transfers number in the millions, and financial institutions have had to and will continue to invest in technology that allows them to flag certain transactions, and currently they only catch about 10% of money laundering activity, but still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The provider of any service like YouTube or Yahoo makes money off their visitors. I don't see how that should lay them open to liability. The shopping center down my road provides a service, and makes money on it, but I can't see how they could be liable if I started fish slapping random strangers with a wet halibut, even if they supplied the aquatic vertebrate in question.
This ends up with the old gun manufacturers debate. Can you, should you, hold the manufacturer of any tool or service responsible for how that tool is used? I don't beleive you should. Which makes a nonsense of those who attack the authors of file-sharing programs which have many legitimate uses.
However, there are double standards at work here. Many sites would like to believe that they own the works posted on their sites, when it suits them, and be able to disown the content when it causes them problems. Perhaps they need to make a clear statement about that to avoid liability. I think Napster were forced to include some silly statement at one time like "should not be used to exchange copyrighted material", when of course everything you write (as an individual) is copyrighted by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hooray!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money laundering and holding financial institutions responsible for their customers who are breaking the law actually has a lot to do with this case. Its holding one party responsible for the illegal activities that others are doing.
I know its kind of a reach, but the two ideas are somewhat related.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is a huge win for freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]