[Vision2020] My Mistake
Dale Courtney
dale@courtneys.us
Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:35:00 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C368A9.CD862C30
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Back on 25 June 2003 I wrote the following
(http://lists2.fsr.net/pipermail/vision2020/2003-June/002776.html):
_____
Ted wrote:
> Please do provide a court case within the USA where libel in a Usenet
forum
> has been successfully pursued. I have seen very abusive content on Usenet
> newsgroups yet have yet to hear of a successful libel suit.
There are three cases of interest:
-Cubby, Inc. vs. CompuServe Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135(S.D.N.Y. 1991)
-Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy (1995)
-Zeran vs. America Online (1996)
You can read about these and subsequent cases over at:
<http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/se
ctions/precedent/cases.html>
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sec
tions/precedent/cases.html
What you are *really* interested in is the liability of ISPs. See:
<http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/se
ctions/liability/index.html>
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sec
tions/liability/index.html
Bottom line:
1. Common Carriers -- like the telephone companies. These are not liable for
what is said/published.
2. Publishers -- like the Daily News. These *are* liable for what is
published.
3. Distributors -- like a news stand. These are *not* liable *until they are
aware that libelous material is in their distribution*.
In the case of Cubby, Inc. vs. CompuServe Inc. {776 F.Supp. 135(S.D.N.Y.
1991)}, Compuserv was found not liable becuase they were unaware of the
content. *However*, the judge ruled that Compuserv *would* have been liable
*if* they had been made aware and had *not* acted upon it.
My understanding -- FSR, as a *distributor* is liable for all libelous
material once they have been made aware of it. The correct course of action
is to delete it from the Vision2020 archives (as has been done in the past).
I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding from reading the case laws
that are out there.
_____
FYI, I followed up on Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (
<http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/statuteitem.cfm?Num=2>
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/statuteitem.cfm?Num=2). I was wrong --
the law was changed and has been upheld in court.
As it turns out, there is a recent case involving AOL/Amazon.com and a
plaintiff (Sneider) who didn't like a review of a book posted by a 3rd party
on the Amazon.com website. He asked Amazon to remove it, and they refused.
He took them to court, and Amazon.com was found not-guilty of libel based on
Section 230 ( <http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case261.cfm>
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case261.cfm) -- in spite of
the fact that AOL:
a) Hosted the site, and
b) Could have removed the material.
This overturned the finding in Cubby vs. CompuServe (
<http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/se
ctions/precedent/cases.html>
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sec
tions/precedent/cases.html).
Having said that, many slanderous posts do exit on Vision2020 and are
available to anyone doing a websearch; it's just that FirstStep is not
liable for them -- but the originator is.
Best,
Dale
------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C368A9.CD862C30
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Back on 25 June 2003 I =
wrote the=20
following<SPAN class=3D167092819-22082003> (<A=20
href=3D"http://lists2.fsr.net/pipermail/vision2020/2003-June/002776.html"=
>http://lists2.fsr.net/pipermail/vision2020/2003-June/002776.html</A>)</S=
PAN>:=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D167092819-22082003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>
<HR>
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2>Ted wrote:<BR>> =
Please do provide=20
a court case within the USA where libel in a Usenet forum<BR>> has =
been=20
successfully pursued. I have seen very abusive content on =
Usenet<BR>>=20
newsgroups yet have yet to hear of a successful libel suit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2>There are three cases =
of=20
interest:<BR>-Cubby, Inc. vs. CompuServe Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135(S.D.N.Y.=20
1991)<BR>-Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy (1995)<BR>-Zeran vs. America =
Online=20
(1996)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT color=3D#800000>You can read =
about these and=20
subsequent cases over at:<BR></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-i=
nternet/sections/precedent/cases.html"><FONT=20
color=3D#800000>http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-a=
nd-the-internet/sections/precedent/cases.html</FONT></A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT color=3D#800000>What you are =
*really*=20
interested in is the liability of ISPs. See:<BR></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-i=
nternet/sections/liability/index.html"><FONT=20
color=3D#800000>http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-a=
nd-the-internet/sections/liability/index.html</FONT></A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2>Bottom line:<BR>1. =
Common Carriers --=20
like the telephone companies. These are not liable for<BR>what is=20
said/published.<BR>2. Publishers -- like the Daily News. These *are* =
liable for=20
what is<BR>published.<BR>3. Distributors -- like a news stand. These are =
*not*=20
liable *until they are<BR>aware that libelous material is in their=20
distribution*.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2>In the case of Cubby, =
Inc. vs.=20
CompuServe Inc. {776 F.Supp. 135(S.D.N.Y.<BR>1991)}, Compuserv was found =
not=20
liable becuase they were unaware of the<BR>content. *However*, the judge =
ruled=20
that Compuserv *would* have been liable<BR>*if* they had been made aware =
and had=20
*not* acted upon it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2>My understanding -- =
FSR, as a=20
*distributor* is liable for all libelous<BR>material once they have been =
made=20
aware of it. The correct course of action<BR>is to delete it from the =
Vision2020=20
archives (as has been done in the past).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#800000 size=3D2>I'm not a lawyer, but =
that's my=20
understanding from reading the case laws<BR>that are out =
there.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<HR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>FYI, I followed up on =
Section 230 of=20
the Communication Decency Act (</FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/statuteitem.cfm?Num=3D2"><FO=
NT=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/statuteitem.cfm?Num=3D2</FO=
NT></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>). I was wrong -- the law was changed =
and <SPAN=20
class=3D167092819-22082003>has been </SPAN>upheld in court.<BR><BR>As it =
turns=20
out, there is a recent case involving AOL/Amazon.com and a plaintiff =
(Sneider)=20
who didn't like a review of a book posted by a 3rd party on the =
Amazon.com=20
website. He asked Amazon to remove it, and they refused. He took them to =
court,=20
and Amazon.com was found not-guilty of libel based on Section 230 =
(</FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case261.cfm"><FONT=
=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case261.cfm</FONT=
></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>) -- in spite of the fact that =
AOL:<BR> a)=20
Hosted the site, <SPAN=20
class=3D167092819-22082003>and</SPAN><BR> b) Could =
have removed=20
the material.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This overturned the finding in Cubby =
vs. CompuServe=20
(</FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-i=
nternet/sections/precedent/cases.html"><FONT=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-=
internet/sections/precedent/cases.html</FONT></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>). <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>Having said that, <SPAN class=3D167092819-22082003>many=20
</SPAN>slanderous posts <SPAN class=3D167092819-22082003>do=20
</SPAN>exit <SPAN class=3D167092819-22082003>on Vision2020 =
</SPAN>and=20
are <SPAN class=3D167092819-22082003>available to anyone doing a =
websearch;=20
it's just that FirstStep is not liable for them -- but the originator =
is.=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Best,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D167092819-22082003>Dale</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C368A9.CD862C30--