Superior Court Judge David Howard upheld provisions set forth under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted by the US Congress in 1996, which protects providers of interactive computer services from liability for content posted by third parties.

iBrattleboro is a community news site based in Brattleboro, Vermont, and was deemed immune from liability by Judge Howard. The judge noted that interactive computer services, such as the iBrattleboro website, were different from traditional offline publications because of the speed with which content appears.

That makes regulating content a "near impossibility." Other proponents of third party liability immunity also believe that liability would have a chilling effect on free speech. The dismissal will not immune the third party commentator, however, if the plaintiff is able to prove his or her identity along with several other factors for determining defamation.

When news of the lawsuit originally broke, iBrattleboro founders Lise LePage and Christopher Grotke gained support from online donations to their legal defense and counsel* from Harvard’s Citizen Media Law Project.

Online anonymity has proven to be at once a boon for free speech and a headache for those seeking recompense for libel and defamation claims. So far, it has been difficult to unmask defamers as the process is invasive to spark concerns about privacy and abuse of whistleblowers via litigation.   
 

*As mentioned in the comments, this word can cause confusion in context. Legal representation and counsel was provided Jim Maxwell, not by Citizen Media Law Project. The intended connotation of the word "counsel" was meant to imply advice and guidance, not official representation. Sorry for the confusion.  

Roommate.com Case To Drop Lawsuit Cluster Bomb

The issue surrounds the drop-down menus on Roommate.com and the information provided in them for users to select. For example, a user seeking a roommate can select that they prefer a smoker or a gay roommate in the drop-down menu.

Because Roommate.com supplied (i.e., created and provided) those options, and not a user typing it in, it doesn’t count as third-party content.

As worded in the court document, this particular decision does not apply to whether Roommate.com actually violated the Fair Housing Act. It’s about whether or not those drop down menus breach the protections offered to interactive computer services (ICS) in oft-cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA):

At this stage, we are only concerned with whether Roommate is immune from liability under the CDA, not whether it actually violated the FHA. We describe the Councils’ FHA theories only to show that the mere asking of questions might, indeed, violate the FHA. It will be up to the district court on remand to decide initially whether Roommate violated the FHA by publishing its form questionnaires.

So, technically, if drop-downs and questionnaire forms offer content worded and presented by the ICS, then they automatically change the status of the ICS to ICP (Internet content provider) as an ICP is one that is responsible in whole or in part of content development on the site.

If that is allowed to stand, then every online entity providing drop-downs or forms could be erasing their liability protection under the CDA – even Google, even you. Let the Craigslist lawsuits begin.

Technology & Marketing Law Blog‘s Eric Goldman thinks this case is potentially one for the US Supreme Court to decide:

[I]f the Ninth Circuit doesn’t correct this opinion, and fast, I predict the following:

1) Websites will shy away from gathering structured data from users. This is silly, of course, because structured data can be more useful for users, but this ruling makes structured data much more risky.

2) Craigslist will lose its very similar case in the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit already had some bad 230 dicta in Doe v. GTE, and this opinion will give the Seventh Circuit judges all the ammo they need to hold Craigslist liable.

3) Plaintiffs are going to have a field day with the language in this opinion, especially as Reinhardt reformulated the test. I predict lots of new lawsuits probing this opinion.

And if you think about it, that’s a lot a fallout from a simple semantic argument. Let’s hope the court system works for the right side this time.

The drama occurred last spring after a Texas girl, who misrepresented herself as a 14-year-old (the minimum age to use MySpace), arranged to meet 19-year-old Pete Solis, who also lied about his age, near the girl’s home. Solis was later arrested and charged with sexual assault.

The parents of hence referred to as Julie Doe, filed suit against MySpace alleging the site did not do enough to protect minors on line through better age verification systems and ways to prevent strangers from contacting underage users. Historically, MySpace has relied on algorithms to police its members for terms of use violations, a system that comes easily into question because it relies on users to, at some point, let the truth slip out.

US District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the lawsuit claiming that MySpace was protected by the Communications Decency Act.The CDA removes liability from interactive computer services for third-party content appearing on the site. In his opinion, Sparks wrote companies like MySpace providing interactive online services "would be crippled by lawsuits" if held responsible for third-party misdeeds.

A MySpace spokesperson said, "We applaud the judge’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims of negligence, fraud and misrepresentation against MySpace. This decision reaffirms that under federal law Internet sites like MySpace cannot be held liable for content posted by, or wrongdoing committed by, individuals who visit our site.

"MySpace has always been concerned about what happened to Julie Doe because we take the safety and security of our community very seriously. However, a law suit against MySpace was not the appropriate way to redress any harm to her.

"We will continue to work to make our site even safer by creating new features and educating our users about online safety."

The parents of the girl say they plan to appeal the ruling.

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews: