Posted by Bryte on August 23, 2014, at 0:14:10 [reposted on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:42 | original URL]
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by pontormo on August 22, 2014, at 12:22:21
>"Section 230 of the [Communications Decency ACt] provides protection from liability to owners of internet forums and ISPs for content distributed through their site."
That is right. That references the types of vicarious liability or contributory liability discussed in a previous post. It addresses forum owners' liability for invitees' mischief. It does address forum owners' liability for content forum owners post on their own sites.
That might be the reason, in their otherwise systematic effort to provide a modicum of moderation, forums such as facebook, yahoo, twitter and scores of other well established social network ventures that enjoy the benefit of quality counsel avoid publishing particular statements about particular members' activities. They would be exempt from liability for members' statements they remove, and to some extent may be exempt from liability for asymmetric removal of content, but they might not be exempt from liability for their own public statements characterizing behavior of members who post particular content on their forums.
Section 230 is not widely recognized as providing forum owners protection from direct liability for harm that arises when forum owners' statements result in harm or adverse events among invitees.
For example, if an automaker maintained a forum in which members who reported fatalities due to faulty accelerators or flawed ignition switches in the automaker's products were not only systematically banned, but also invited to return to again and again be publicly sanctioned as troublemakers who spread falsehoods - after the automaker knew harm could result from the product - the automaker would not seem to be shielded by Section 203 from liability for its own statements it publishes in the forum it operates.
Forums committed to more impartial adjudication might better serve as venues for some complaints of harm that might result from activities of a forum owner who deliberately attracts psychologically at risk members while admitting the nature of his active involvement can be seen as throwing stones at members. On the other hand, it might be difficult for some at-risk invitees to stay away from an attraction where, by the owners' admission, some of the owners' activities purportedly styled to reduce anxiety triggers can reinforce unhealthy expectations.
poster:Bryte
thread:1070154
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1070335.html