Just a word of warning slashdot, US courts have held that if a service provider censers ANY content on their service, then they are liable for ALL content on their server. Legally, you dont have to take any content down from your server without a court order demanding you do so -- and that can also be appealed -- please note the below, as it cites cases where services providers have been found NOT liable for third party posts, as long as it is uncensored:
B. In several recent cases, the United States Federal Courts of Appeals have ruled that providers of service, so long as they don't edit content, aren't responsible for it:
C. Section 230 of the CDA states that "[n]o provider ? of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. 230(c) (1).(3) Accordingly, any lawsuit attempting to hold "service providers liable for information originating with a third party user of the service" is barred. Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 2341 (1998) ("By its plain language, 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service").
D. The Fourth Circuit has also held that 230 precludes courts from entertaining lawsuits that seek to hold an interactiVe computer service liable for failure to exercise traditional editorial functions of a publisher such as deciding "whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content." Id. When enacting 230, Congress made a policy choice not to attempt to deter harmful or defamatory online speech by imposing tort liability on interactive computer services. Id. at 330-31. In essence "[Congress] made the legislative judgment to effectively immunize providers of interactive computer services from civil liability in tort with respect to material disseminated by them but created by others." Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 49 (D.D.C. 1998). Section 230, on the other hand, in no way restricts the accountability of the party who posted the defamatory messages in the first place. The above was the US District Court dismissing claims against L-Soft, co-defendent in Truelove v. Mensa. However, in this case, L-Soft exercised no editorial control at all. 230 was a direct response to the "Prodigy decision", it's clear that Congress intended it to and other laws (such as the DMCA) contain even clearer provisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a word of warning slashdot, US courts have held that if a service provider censers ANY content on their service, then they are liable for ALL content on their server. Legally, you dont have to take any content down from your server without a court order demanding you do so -- and that can also be appealed -- please note the below, as it cites cases where services providers have been found NOT liable for third party posts, as long as it is uncensored:
.(3) Accordingly, any lawsuit attempting to hold "service providers liable for information originating with a third party user
B. In several recent cases, the United States Federal Courts of Appeals have ruled that providers of service, so long as they don't edit content, aren't responsible for it:
C. Section 230 of the CDA states that "[n]o provider ? of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider." 47 U.S.C. 230(c) (1)
of the service" is barred. Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 2341 (1998) ("By its plain language, 230 creates a federal
immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service").
D. The Fourth Circuit has also held that 230 precludes courts from entertaining lawsuits that seek to hold an interactiVe computer service liable for failure to exercise
traditional editorial functions of a publisher such as deciding "whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content." Id. When enacting 230, Congress made a policy choice
not to attempt to deter harmful or defamatory online speech by imposing tort liability on interactive computer services. Id. at 330-31. In essence "[Congress] made the legislative
judgment to effectively immunize providers of interactive computer services from civil liability in tort with respect to material disseminated by them but created by others."
Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 49 (D.D.C. 1998). Section 230, on the other hand, in no way restricts the accountability of the party who posted the defamatory messages
in the first place. The above was the US District Court dismissing claims against L-Soft, co-defendent in Truelove v. Mensa. However, in this case, L-Soft exercised no
editorial control at all. 230 was a direct response to the "Prodigy decision", it's clear that Congress intended it to and other laws (such as the DMCA) contain even clearer
provisions.