Judges Quickly Tossing Out Bogus Internet Liability Cases
from the good-news dept
In the past, we've covered why section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes a lot of sense (despite plenty of other flaws in that law). What it says is that a service provider isn't liable for the actions its users take within the service. This makes fundamental sense (it's almost too bad there even needs to be a law pointing it out), because what it's saying is that you don't blame whoever made the tool, you blame whoever used it. You don't blame the telephone company if someone uses the telephone to commit a crime, and therefore you don't blame the ISP or website when a user does something illegal as well. Over the years, the courts have had various decisions (some good, some bad) concerning section 230, but it's beginning to get to the point where judges seem comfortable quickly dismissing bogus claims against service providers. Eric Goldman points to a recent case where a user of MSN's forums got upset about some messages on the forums and rather than going after those who made the statements, sued Microsoft. Microsoft filed a motion to dismiss per section 230 and, voila, case dismissed. Hopefully, this will start to become common practice so that the courts aren't littered with these types of bogus cases much longer.
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 chronology ]
Re:
Are you sure about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To get this information it is necessary to sue the provider rather than the law breaker.
I don't have a good solution, but as long as people hide behind providers to remain anonymous it will remain necessary to sue providers when one wishes to file a civil suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not a lawyer but...
Nope. To get this information they need something called a warrant.
Alternatively something called a Court Order might do it.
No lawsuit required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #3 AC
However, to give that info out without it, could get the ISP sued over privacy issues. There is a reason they don't give it out freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not hiding behind the ISP
cause, in fact, #5 is right on-- why would I expect the ISP to put their neck out for me?? Protect ya neck kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]