It's certainly a very troubling outcome given the facts of the case, which
I was reporting rather than endorsing. The appeals court relied partly on
the breadth of the statute enacted by Congress, and partly on the
difficulty of drawing lines reflecting which types of conduct by a
site-owner would or would not be protected if the statute were construed
more narrowly.
The court's decision, and particularly the key portions of it quoted on the
Volokh blog, are reasonably accessible to non-lawyers, so everyone
interested can certainly review them rather than rely on my summary.
Incidentally, another appeals court decision issued today may also be of
interest. Here is Judge Posner writing for the Seventh Circuit on the
copyright status of Sherlock Holmes pastiches:
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2…
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, edward <edward(a)logicmuseum.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad
view of Section 230 and
holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated
"dirt"
about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected
which contributions would be published.
Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>