[Imc] hiding a story
Ellen Knutson
knutson at shout.net
Wed Sep 19 05:09:34 UTC 2001
Like Sacsha I spent some time today looking for some sort of verification
of this story. The only thing I could verify is that the person named as
the killer does exist (in fact this was very easy, making the fear of libel
more strong in my opinoin). I could find nothing on the person named as the
victim. I could find no mention of the story in any major NC newspaper and
indeed not in any major newpaper in the northeast or southeast.
It is my understanding that the disclaimer that we have was put into place
to protect our 501(c)(3) status, and not to protect us from libel. I've
also just spent some time at the Findlaw site trying to determine if we
have any liability for libel. And as I'm not a lawyer I can't say
conclusively yes or no. Here is what I can say: in 1996 congress passed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. One provision in this act (47 U.S.C. §
230(c)) states that service providers cannot be held liable for libel even
if they edit some of the posting. I am not sure if we would be considered a
service provider (interactive computer service is the term in the act).
Here is the definition: "interactive computer service" is "any information
service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables
computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including
specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and
such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational
institutions." 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(2). As a non lawyer I can see an argument
that would put us as interactive computer service. However, the case law
(which is where the true test of how legislation is interpreted) has only
been brought against big time Internet service providers--namely AOL.
If we are protected by this provision, it does not matter legally that we
chose to hide this post. This addresses Sandra's concern we are more open
to libel if we are acting like editors. (Which by the way was certainly the
case before this act. see Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co.,
1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995).) And if we are not protected
by this provision and I'm not convinced that we are, we are open for libel.
Therefore, I would argue that the post remain hidden.
Ellen
More information about the IMC
mailing list