|  | ||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Defamation > Weather Reports > Don't Host It Girl.com? | 
|
|  Don't Host It Girl.com?Alan Massengale, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, UC-Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Ha, October 27, 2006 Abstract: Can the owners of websites whose users post intimate and salacious details about the personal lives of others be held liable for libel? Todd Hollis is suing the proprietor of DontDateHimGirl.com, alleging that she refused to take down false information regarding his sexuality and fidelity. Natasha Joseph counters that she is not the one defaming Mr. Hollis, and likens her position to the owner of a coffee shop whose patrons are free to discuss all types of subject matter. (see article here) As with print media where courts have avoided shifting responsibility for the content of allegedly libelous material from the creator to the distributor, decisions involving electronic media have refused to hold internet service providers responsible for user-generated content. The Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 203(c)(1) states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In, Dimeo v. Max a case recently decided in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, plaintiff Anthony Dimeo was upset with posts on defendant Tucker Max’s website questioning his character and social and professional skills following a less than successful New Year’s Eve party. The court held that editing and selecting posts to be displayed on his website did not change defendant's role from a provider of an interactive computer service to a provider of information content. The court further observed, quoting an earlier decision in Zeran v. America Online: “Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers … would essentially have two choices: (1) employ an army of highly trained monitors to patrol (in real time) each chatroom, message board, and blog to screen any message that one could label defamatory, or (2) simply avoid such a massive headache and shut down these fora. Either option would profoundly chill Internet speech.” Is there anything to distinguish Hollis from Dimeo and other cases that have consistently been decided in favor of internet service providers? Not likely, but in an article in the Miami Herald, Hollis’s attorneys John Orie and James Cooney argue that DontDateHimGirl.com is different from the usual message board or chat room because the intent of the site is to be a “malicious communications medium.” “She has to know what it has become – that it is being used for vindictive purposes.” If nothing else, the case already offers an interesting battle of analogies. “If there are three terrorists 'sitting in a coffee shop plotting to blow something up, don't you think the coffee shop owner has a responsibility to do something?’'' Orie said. Interesting. Related articles of interest: Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites High court justices sound cool toward Internet libel case
|
|
|
|
Related News