LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CMPLAW-L Archives


CMPLAW-L Archives

CMPLAW-L Archives


CMPLAW-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CMPLAW-L Home

CMPLAW-L Home

CMPLAW-L  July 1997

CMPLAW-L July 1997

Subject:

Re: Regulation of Chat Halls and Bulliten Boards

From:

DAY <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Internet and Computer Law Association <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 30 Jul 1997 11:19:50 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (45 lines)

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Tim Jacobson wrote:

> I don't know where the idea came from that the First Amendment
> doesn't apply to forums created by private entities.  The First
> Amendment does apply to such situations.  However, the First
> Amendment is designed to protect individuals from being silenced
> by the government.  The issue of whether an operator of a private
> bulletin board can or should exercise some control over messages
> being posted is an entirely separate matter.  Moderators of
> "moderated" listservs exercise control over the messages being
> posted all the time.

I'd love to see any cases that you can provide in which a private
organization was obligated to adhere to First Amendment principles when
creating or operating a private forum.

> On the other hand, I think there has been
> litigation over the issue of a forum provider of some sort taking
> on the duty to keep certain inappropriate materials off of that
> service or forum and the consequences of failing to do so on
> some occassions.  I'm sure there's someone else out there better
> qualified to discuss that point than me.

There have been three such cases that I am aware of; CompuServe v. Cubby,
Prodigy v. Stratton Oakmont and the third I mentioned earlier, Zeran v.
America Online. All three are libel cases.

CompuServe and Prodigy cases were both decided prior to passing of the
Communications Decency Act. In the CompuServe case, the ISP was not held
responsible for libel because there was no indication that CompuServe
exerted any editorial control over content. Prodigy, on the other hand,
did exert editorial control over content and was found responsible for
libelous comments made by a third party. The Prodigy case was eventually
settled out of court during the appeals process.

In Zeran, the court ruled that the Communications Decency Act preempted
any action against the ISP for libel statements made by a third party. The
U.S. District Court ruling was made in March 1997. I don't know whether
its been appealed. The CDA seems to specifically protect ISPs that are not
involved in creation of disputed content.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
David NL Day
[log in to unmask]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2005
August 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
November 2001
October 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
April 2001
March 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
June 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager