|
Actually, no, the jurisprudence is really scarce on 47 USC 230 - to my knowledge, there have been no more than 4 (perhaps 5) rulings on this issue so far.
This, however, means that any court ruling on immunity case will quite likely examine all the existing rulings - and if criminal law is involved, the dissenting opinion in Jane Doe v. AOL might actually prevail in the next court.
More so since, IMO, it does actually make more sense than the majority opinion in that context.
I think Maarken did the most sensible thing in this context. To deal with the aftermath, I'd do the following:
If #### happens on the MUD, more specifically if there are any newsboard posts, I'd simply post a note after a player critic that the players were removed due to abuse, which will not be discussed with other players. Then, a few days later, without actually mentionning this situation, post an update of the rules and policies. No other explanation given, or else you'll have arguments until the end of time, or rather, until the MUD's empty.
|