mists4s5ztan
Dołączył: 26 Kwi 2011
Posty: 107
Przeczytał: 0 tematów
Ostrzeżeń: 0/5
Skąd: England
|
 Wysłany: Pią 6:52, 06 Maj 2011 Temat postu: Gucci Sunglasses32 Tips To Avoid Costly Liability |
 |
|
yright 2009 Chip Cooper
Many sites these days are interactive -- they permit site visitors to post to the site.
Forums and blogs would be by the top of most of our lists for types of interactive sites. However, differ varieties of sites are too permitting employers to post, such as classified ad sites.
What happens if a visitor posts a defamatory statement '- or statements that are in violation of characteristic statutes -- ashore your blog [link widoczny dla zalogowanych], bbs, or in a classified ad on your site? Are you liable?
The Communications Decency Act
Congress came to the rescue of "interactive computer services" in 1996 with subsection (c) of the Communications Decency Act which provides: "No provider alternatively user of whichever interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher alternatively speaker of anybody message invested by dissimilar information content provider." 47 USCA Sec. 230(c) (referred to beneath as "Section 230"). Section 230 was intended to overrule prior case statute which routinely held that online providers were liable as publishers and speakers for third party content. Now, under Section 230, interactive websites have a safeguard opposition liability for visitor's posts. However, 2 recent cases show that the Section 230 safeguard from responsibility has its limits.
The Craigslist.com Case Upholds Section 230 As Liability Shield
In November 2006, a US District Court held that Craigslist.com [link widoczny dla zalogowanych], an online classified ad site [link widoczny dla zalogowanych], was not liable for discriminatory practices of its users.
The suit had been brought by the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law which declared that Craigslist.com had a sequence of rental housing ads containing discriminatory statements. Examples of discriminatory statements by users embodied "not minorities" and "no children".
In March 2008, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's decision. Essentially, the 7th Circuit held that Craigslist.com was just a "postman" and is shielded from liability by Section 230 for the discriminatory ads posted by its users.
The Roommates.com Case Goes The Other Way
In April 2008, the 9th Circuit reversed a District Court's ruling and held that Section 230 did not shield Roommates.com from certain parts of the site that gave users restricted alternatives for expressing their beliefs. On the other hand portions of the site that granted free-form txt were held to be shielded by Section 230. Similar to the Craigslist.com case, the users' statements were attested to be discriminatory and in violation of just housing laws.
The key distinguishing element famous along the 7th Circuit was the building imposed by Roommates.com. For example:
* questions were posed to users inquiring for racial preferences; and
* pull-down menus for user's silhouette replies essential answers ahead the user could proceed
Does Roommates.com Case Signal a Major Shift?
The answer arises: does the Roommates.com decision marker a major shift away from the protections of Section 230? The decision denoted that a major shift was not intended.
The opinion indicated that the ruling ought merely apply narrowly to a finite number of sites: "The message is clear: If you don't encourage unlawful content, or chart your website to necessitate users to input illegal content, you will be immune."
In appending, the attitude contained explicit language that a major shift away from Section 230 was not intended. "Websites are difficult undertakings, and there ambition always be near cases where a smart attorney could debate that someone the website operator did encouraged the illegality. Such near cases, we believe, have to be resolved in like of immunity, lest we tear the heart out of partition 230 by forcing websites to face death by ten thousand duck-bites, fighting off claims that they enhanced or encouraged -- or at fewest tacitly assented to -- the illegality of third parties."
Beware of "Obligatio
Post został pochwalony 0 razy
|
|
