Another Good Section 230 Ruling: Forum Owner Not Liable For Posts
from the good-to-see dept
It's good to see judges getting things right -- and more often than not, they're being both quick and smart when it comes to misguided lawsuits from plaintiffs against sites that host content, but don't publish it. The latest involves the owners of a bodybuilding forum website, bodybuilding.com, who were sued by a nutritional supplement maker, claiming that competitors had posted negative reviews on the site. But the judge tossed out the lawsuit against the forum operator using section 230. The supplement maker tried to argue that the forum owners had teamed up with the competitor in a conspiracy to say bad things about the supplement, but the judge didn't buy it. The only question was whether the website owners posted the content. They didn't. There's no case.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: forums, liability, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dig a little
Here are the highlights:
Syntrax Innovations said the website (bodybuilding.com) promoted libelous statements from competing companies which could be read by the public.
Section 230 states, basically, that no person or organization shall be held liable for content put forth by someone else.
It was in a forum, they didn't post it, they are not responsible, case dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dig a little
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dig a little
I can prove thats not my IP/i didn't post it. Therefore its not my fault!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
I mean, gee, give me a few hours with a tape from and armed robbery and the right equipment, and I can make it look like Obama did it. WOuld it be real? Nope. But it you are only going to accept that, well...
At bare minimum, the forum should be required to provide what information they have on the OD so that they can say "this dude isn't us". Otherwise to me, SODDI in a pretty empty answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dig a little
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
Interesting that you speak of accusing me of libel in a post I hadn't yet posted in, you dog beating, grandma humping, baby eater...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
So to put it in simple terms since you keep asking: the suing company didn't provide enough for the judge to say "yes, this is sufficient to go to trial". the burden of proof here was VERY low for the plaintiffs. all they had to show was that there was enough to go to trial, not enough to win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cellulite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]