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=Y20...
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, edward edward@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe