Citizen Journalism Site Sued Over Content Posted By User
from the no-surprise-there dept
We've seen way too many cases where people blame service providers for the actions of their users, despite clear safe harbors found in section 230 of the CDA. The courts have been pretty consistent in throwing these lawsuits out, but it appears the message still hasn't reached some lawyers. Up in Brattleboro, New Hampshire, someone is suing a local citizen journalism site for comments posted by a user that were potentially defamatory. The woman is suing the person who made the comments -- which makes sense -- but also the site that hosted them. This, despite the fact that the comments on the site are unmoderated. This would seem like a clear situation where the site, iBrattleboro, is protected by section 230, but the lawyer handling the case doesn't seem to think so: "I think their defense will be that they don't read prior to publishing, but I'm not sure that will be enough to avoid some degree of liability." That seems like an odd statement as the law is pretty clear: "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." Plus, there's a wide assortment of precedent cases that all seem to back up very similar situations as being protected.
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
Filed Under: brattleboro, safe harbor, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How is this lawyer compensated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is this lawyer compensated?
Never assume malice if stupidity will suffice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Weird. Looks like the changed the URL. Lame. I've put in the new URL. Hopefully it doesn't change again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanctions
Section 230 has been on the books for over ten years now, and its application to websites in this context is well established - it's unlikely you (plaintiff or plaintiff's lawyer) are going to get a judgment against an ISP or website operator in connection with materials written by a third party and posted by such third party on the subject website. And I don't recall reading any opinions where notice/knowledge precluded immunity under the statute.
Eventually courts may begin sanctioning plaintiffs and/or their attorneys for bringing such lawsuits in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brattleboro where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]