Court: ISPs Not Liable For Content

PerlDiver writes: "Free speech online scored a major win Wednesday. A federal judge ruled that ISPs are not responsible (under Section 230 of the CDA) for the content of Web sites hosted using their services. This goes a long way to removing the incentive for service providers to proactively censor such sites. (Interestingly enough, the case in question involved sites selling tapes of nude college athletes, shot in locker rooms without their knowledge.)" We've seen a number of cases like this, where an offended party tries to target the deep pockets of the ISP rather than the actual offender - that section of the CDA seems to be working as designed, however, to prevent these.

microsoft?

[grammar nazi]

Well, that protects Andover.net from the microsoft's copyright allegations, but what will Slashdot do? How come we haven't been updated?

Re:microsoft?

[gavinhall]

Posted by 11223:

I don't think that Slashdot qualifies as an ISP in this sense. I think it's more a matter of an ISP being a web-hosting site - is Microsoft's bandwidth provider liable for Sherman Anti-Trust Act-infringing Java VM's on their web site? No, because they're a service provider. Slashdot is a content provider - this isn't a personal web page but a discussion board.

Re:microsoft?

[titus-g]

It will be interesting to see how far the definition of ISP can be stretched, possibly Slashdot could argue that they are just providing a web hosting service, with built in page publishing tools, we are the content providers.

On the other hand that is probably just silly.

It's quite refreshing to have a sensible judgement like this from the court system for a change though, now if only they could have done this in the UK with Dr Nutter Vs. Demon Internet.

Re:microsoft?

[SidVicious]

As much as I would like to agree, I can't. If a post containing illegal information were posted, pointed out by the owner, to the message board would become responsible for removing it. I have a feeling the students were trying to reap as much money as they could. Trying to hold the ISP, responsible for allowing the item to be sold. I am sure once they found out it was an illegal copy, the offending website was removed. Not helping slash dot at all. As I understand it Slashdot is saying, no, I won't remove the posts, even tough you claim they are illegal. I'm glad Slashdot isn't removing them. I think Microsoft is being more than little stupid.

Re:microsoft?

[grammar nazi]

What I meant to say was that this would protect Andover from anything that Slashdot has.

Re:microsoft?

[Trickster Coyote]

...this would protect Andover from anything that Slashdot has.

Probably not, since Andover actually owns Slashdot. By its ownership, Andover has the potential to control what content appears on Slashdot and thus would share some legal liability for the content. I think this ruling has more to do with ISPs who are hosting unrelated third party websites. They have no power to control the content and therefore (as this judge rightly ruled) they should bear no liability.

Re:Could it be the..

[Neuronix]

But ya know, at least you'll never get moderated
down. Moderaters only pay attention (especially for upping points) to stuff for the first hour something is posted.

P.S. NOW I HAVE THE LAST POST hehe

Re:microsoft?

[grammar nazi]

You are probably right. I was thinking of it that way.

Thanks for the clarification, Trickster.

Re:microsoft?

[TGR]

If microsoft had done that, /. would just have to run around singing YMCA.

(Ugh. that one was *bad*. Sorry :)

Re:microsoft?

[Senior Frac]

Probably not, since Andover actually owns Slashdot. By its ownership, Andover has the potential to control what content appears on Slashdot and thus would share some legal liability for the content. The original charge made by the atheletes was suing them "as an ISP." That was quickly thrown out. They reapplied with a different charge. The company was also a "content provider" because they were the ones hosting the information on their webpage. This, also, was dismissed. This hits closer to Slashdot than one might think! The only difference being that Slashdot claims that comments are the responsiblity of the posters', not Slashdot.

--

I have it now.

[IainB]

Bwah-ha-ha.

Re:microsoft?

[Seth Finkelstein]

Argh, no. Microsoft is going after Slashdot using another law, the DMCA. I believe this case involved entirely different claims

- The Lunatic From Boston