Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Jinn · 04-04-2008, 06:53 AM

I believe he meant the Federal Communications Decency Act, but you've just illustrated precisely what he was talking about.

Quote:

DuPage County Circuit Judge Hollis Webster dismissed a lawsuit challenging the protection given website operators who distribute allegedly defamatory material. Webster said the Federal Communications Decency Act protects distributors of allegedly defamatory material on the Internet. "Our federal lawmakers have determined that a national, consistent Law protecting websites upon which allegedly defamatory statements are published, from civil liability is appropriate. This court will remain consistent with the courts in other states, and on the federal level in interpreting the Communications Decency Act."

Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website that allegedly published defamatory material provided by a third party is eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

And what about the 'communications decency act'? In a landmark 1997 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Internet is a unique medium entitled to the highest protection under the free speech protections of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It's more complicated than that of course, but you can look it up yourself.

Bidbay.com Inc. v. Spry, No. B160126 (Cal. Ct. App, 2d App. Dist., 2003). A California court ruled on Internet chat rooms and the First Amendment. Plaintiff Bidbay.com brought a suit for defamation against Bruce Spry for posting allegedly libelous statements in an online chat room. Spry moved to dismiss the action under California's anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation law (Anti-SLAPP law). California's Anti-SLAPP law allows courts to strike causes of action arising from a defendant's exercise of free speech in a public forum in connection with a public issue. Bidbay.com argued that the Anti-SLAPP law did not apply because the online chat room was not a public forum because it had prevented Bidbay from posting a rebuttal to the statements. The court disagreed and dismissed the case stating that an online chat room is a public forum, even if the operator of the chat room controls the content of the statements posted on the site.

LAWSUITS AGAINST WEBSITE POSTERS

Several court decisions have protected statements made on websites.

In Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., a 2001 decision allowed a pseudonymous message board poster to retain his or her anonymity. "The Internet is a truly democratic forum for communication," the court wrote in its opinion. "It allows for the free exchange of ideas at an unprecedented speed and scale. For this reason, the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded."

In McIntyre v. the Ohio Elections Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court gave anonymous free speech special protection, writing: "the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But ... our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."