Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - User generated content

Lasher · 04-08-2008, 08:39 PM

Not sure how relevant this is in-game, but very relevant to the forums, hosted blogs, etc that many MUDs have. The only reasonable decision that could have made imho, but stranger things have happened in law so it could have gone either way:

Third Party Content Immunity Affirmed
"9th Circuit Affirms Immunity for Pure Third-Party Web Content"

"En banc decision defines scope of immunity for mixed-content websites"

By Kelli L. Sager, Bruce E. H. Johnson, Thomas R. Burke, and Ambika K. Doran
[April 2008]

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has issued a widely anticipated decision concerning the scope of immunity afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). In a lengthy opinion issued late last week, the court reaffirmed prior rulings that interpreted the statute as broadly immunizing website owners from liability based on content posted by third parties."

"Service provider or content provider?
The district court held that Roommates.com was immune from liability under Section 230 of the CDA, which states that “[n]o provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(7). The immunity provided by the federal law thereby distinguishes “service providers” from “information content providers,” who are defined as those “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [content].” Id. § 230(f)(3) (emphasis added)."

"As the 9th Circuit noted, however:
"A website operator can be both a service provider and a content provider: If it passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service provider with respect to that content. But as to content that it creates itself, or is “responsible, in whole or in part” for creating or developing, the website is also a content provider. Thus, a website may be immune from liability for some of the content it displays to the public but be subject to liability for other content.""

"Erring on the side of immunity
Notably, the court emphasized that in close cases, courts should err on the side of finding Section 230 immunity, “lest we cut the heart out of section 230 by forcing websites to face death by ten thousand duck-bites, fighting off claims that they promoted or encouraged—or at least tacitly assented to—the illegality of third parties.” In finding Roommates.com immune for content posted in the “additional comments” section, and in stating the policies behind Section 230 generally, the court made clear that website operators remain free to edit third-party content, so long as they do not do so in a way that makes it unlawful. Thus, as the en banc decision states, the message behind the decision “is clear: If you don't encourage illegal content, or design your website to require users to input illegal content, you will be immune.” "

04-08-2008, 08:39 PM	#1
Lasher Administrator Join Date: May 2005 Name: Derek Location: Orlando Posts: 357	User generated content - immunity. Not sure how relevant this is in-game, but very relevant to the forums, hosted blogs, etc that many MUDs have. The only reasonable decision that could have made imho, but stranger things have happened in law so it could have gone either way: Third Party Content Immunity Affirmed "9th Circuit Affirms Immunity for Pure Third-Party Web Content" "En banc decision defines scope of immunity for mixed-content websites" By Kelli L. Sager, Bruce E. H. Johnson, Thomas R. Burke, and Ambika K. Doran [April 2008] "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has issued a widely anticipated decision concerning the scope of immunity afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). In a lengthy opinion issued late last week, the court reaffirmed prior rulings that interpreted the statute as broadly immunizing website owners from liability based on content posted by third parties." "Service provider or content provider? The district court held that Roommates.com was immune from liability under Section 230 of the CDA, which states that “[n]o provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(7). The immunity provided by the federal law thereby distinguishes “service providers” from “information content providers,” who are defined as those “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [content].” Id. § 230(f)(3) (emphasis added)." "As the 9th Circuit noted, however: "A website operator can be both a service provider and a content provider: If it passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service provider with respect to that content. But as to content that it creates itself, or is “responsible, in whole or in part” for creating or developing, the website is also a content provider. Thus, a website may be immune from liability for some of the content it displays to the public but be subject to liability for other content."" "Erring on the side of immunity Notably, the court emphasized that in close cases, courts should err on the side of finding Section 230 immunity, “lest we cut the heart out of section 230 by forcing websites to face death by ten thousand duck-bites, fighting off claims that they promoted or encouraged—or at least tacitly assented to—the illegality of third parties.” In finding Roommates.com immune for content posted in the “additional comments” section, and in stating the policies behind Section 230 generally, the court made clear that website operators remain free to edit third-party content, so long as they do not do so in a way that makes it unlawful. Thus, as the en banc decision states, the message behind the decision “is clear: If you don't encourage illegal content, or design your website to require users to input illegal content, you will be immune.” "