Courts Chip Away at Web sites' decade-old legal shield

[SteppingRazor]

Uh oh. So ... if appeals courts back this, I wonder how it affects us here at DU? Thoughts?

___________________________




For more than a decade, Web site operators have enjoyed a broad legal shield against lawsuits filed over material posted by their users, which has let user-driven sites like YouTube and MySpace.com flourish.

But a pair of recent rulings by federal district judges have chipped away at that protective shield. If those decisions are upheld on appeal, and if more judges follow suit, Web site operators and Internet service providers may find themselves compelled to police what their users post--or face the unsettling prospect of being held liable for the contents.

"We fear these cases might inspire a wave of new lawsuits that, even if ultimately dismissed, will create a chilling effect," said Sophia Cope, an attorney for the Center for Democracy and Technology, which has filed briefs supporting broad immunity and gets some financial support from a number of prominent Internet companies. "Many small start-up Web services might find that the costs of defending such suits--in terms of time and legal fees--are too much to bear."


Continued:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9911501-7.html

[Hugabear]

1. Here come the thought police

Welcome to 1984.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Really, though? Just to play devil's advocate...

every other medium, be it print, broadcast or what have you, is covered by libel laws and publicity rights. Why should the Internet be the exception?

[Hugabear]

4. Free speech often relies on the ability to remain anonymous

From what I've been reading lately, many sites would be required to record your personal information, and anonymity would be a thing of the past.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Good point, in that no one is truly anonymous on the Internet -- your ISP knows all.

But the point with the story above is that you wouldn't be able to interfere with publicity rights -- that is, you wouldn't be able to use the image or name of a private figure (as opposed to a public figure) in a manner they did not agree with. Certainly, that will limit speech on the Internet, but is it really the end of free speech?

[NYC Liberal]

6. Websites are a bit different. With TV, for example,

you don't have people just walking on and saying whatever they want. And with print, the public doesn't have the ability to go into, for example, the NY Times' offices and comment on whatever they'd like and have it printed.

On the internet, you have (potentially) thousands of people commenting - you can't really hold the website owner responsible unless it is something really egregious that should obviously be taken down.

[SteppingRazor]

7. Granted, the Internet has an immediacy and an interface that other media lack.

But should that preclude the Internet's being held to the same standards?


(Mind you, it's not as though I necessarily disagree with your point, or those of other posters in this thread. Like I said, just devil's advocating.)

[NYC Liberal]

9. Well, the thing is, when you get a website that is incredibly popular

It becomes impossible to moderate everything. And not only that, unless the site somehow provoked a libelous comment to be made or was involved in making it, I don't really see the basis for suing them - go after the poster who said it.

[Greyhound]

11. The difference is very simple. In no other medium is it possible for everybody that uses

it to immediately add to it. How would DU even exist if Skinner & Co. were required to screen every post and reply before it was viewed on the board.

[Selatius]

2. I believe it would essentially destroy freedom of speech on the internet.

This should be fought, and at the present time, we should probably avoid going to the US Supreme Court. It is now dominated by corporate/social authoritarians.

[Echo In Light]

10. Obviously. The powers that be don't want the public to have a voice, and they do online

From power's perspective, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. This is simply one of those tactics. When the people have a voice, power seeks ways of limiting and marginalizing it.

[Akoto]

8. Seems like the justice system is driven to cripple the internet.

I suppose I'm not surprised, given the current administration. The internet has long been the final bastion for the free exchange of ideas and information. Unlike any time in the past, people can share things instantaneously, no matter where they are in the world. Not good when you're trying to control everything.

If content is controlled, the internet will never be the same. Yes, its non-policed state allows bad things to slip in, but it also allows many good things people would otherwise remain ignorant of.

[mainegreen]

12. Or it will drive hosting and registration overseas.

Also bad.