Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2014, at 13:47:55 [reposted on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:40 | original URL]
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by pontormo on August 22, 2014, at 12:22:21
> Just to keep things clear:
>
> Bob is not legally liable for content provided by users of psychobabble.
>
> What his moral or other responsibility may be is perhaps a matter of debate, but section 230 of the DCA protects him from liability for the effects of posts here.
>
> That is, Section 230 of the DCA provides protection from liability to owners of internet forums and ISPs for content distributed through their site.. It essentially was passed to free forum owners from sanctions that a "publisher" of material might be subject to. The question was whether owners, if they restricted posts, thereby became "editors" who by exercising control over what material was published and in what form, became thereby responsible for it.
>
> There had been lawsuits that claimed this liability. They argued that by blocking or deleting material, internet forum owners became "publishers", thereby liable for the content. The act specifically rejects and makes impossible that claim.
>
> In this respect, Bob doesn't need insurance-- although perhaps someone might file an unwinnable lawsuit simply to force him to expend funds that he doesn't have, on hiring lawyers to defend himself. This has been done, generally by companies who believe that their businesses have been negatively affected by discussions or reviews on websites. And it can have a devastating effect. But one would be hard-pressed to think that an attorney to take this case-- given that any damages would be exceptionally hard to prove.
>
> That posters here feel uncomfortable--or even very uncomfortable-- no matter how widespread the discomfort--could never be the basis of any such action. It doesn't create the sort or degree of damage that is actionable. that is.
>
> Again, one might say it's wrong of Bob to have subject people to discomfort-- but it simply isn't the sort of damage that courts or the legal system deem itself in the role of addressing.
>
Friends,
> portormo wrote,[...Bob is not legally liable for content provided by users of psychobabble...].
Friends, be advised that the poster refers to a law in the US that says that when the whole law is not cited.
Another part of that law states that owners of sites similar but not exactly like psychobabble are immune from liability posted by others UNLESS, and I caution you here to understand that the immunity offered by the CDA is not absolute.
The law reads in part that site owners are immune from liability that could arise from third-party posts unless they are creators or developers of the content. Then they lose their immunity.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1070154
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1070333.html