Judge Tosses Out Lawsuit Against Citizen Journalism Site

from the safe-harbors-strike-again dept

Tue, Apr 1st 2008 2:34am — Mike Masnick

Back in November of last year, we wrote about a citizen journalism site in Vermont that was being sued for content posted on the site. As we noted at the time, it seemed quite clear that the site itself was protected by section 230 of the CDA, which provides a safe harbor for sites, preventing them for being liable for content contributed by users. It would appear that a judge agrees and has dismissed the lawsuit, citing the safe harbor provisions of the CDA. Another victory for falsely blamed sites.

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: cda, citizen journalism, safe harbors
Companies: ibrattleboro

6 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jeremy, 1 Apr 2008 @ 4:30am

Second sentence.
"Protection" should be "protected."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 1 Apr 2008 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: Second sentence.
  Oops. Fixed. Thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg, 1 Apr 2008 @ 5:18am

Agreed
I was about to say the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 1 Apr 2008 @ 8:03am

Lawyers should know better
Why are there so many Lawyers willing to take these cases, knowing they're going to get tossed out, making them selfs look like nothing but ambulance chasers (so to speak). Has the money become that good, that its worth their reputation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jack Sombra, 1 Apr 2008 @ 8:11am

A lawyer Reputation
"Has the money become that good, that its worth their reputation..."

The day a lawyer passes the bar his reputation is equal to that of a carnivorous turd

Some, after many years of hard work, honesty and integrity become human beings worthy of respect, while the majority remain remain somewhere on the scale between the turd and shark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike allen, 1 Apr 2008 @ 8:49am
  
  Re: A lawyer Reputation
  How dare you call lawyers turds or sharks I will see my lawyer to consider suing you for defamation and libel against turds.
  everyone knows their is not a thing on the planet low enough to describe lawyers. (and estate agents)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]