Two stipulations: Joe Albero is still unpleasant, and I would rather not be writing two posts about him in a row.
BUT. A lawsuit filed against him, seeking to hold him liable for comments other people left on his blog, could end up being a very clarifying legal precedent protecting Web publishers from being responsible for other peoples' asinine anonymous comments. To that end, I hope Albero succeeds in getting the lawsuit thrown out, as we report today he is trying to do.
The background is all there in reporter Greg Latshaw's story - go read it. Here's my takeaway: I think Albero's attorney, Bruce Bright, is absolutely correct that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields a Web publisher like Albero (and like me, and my employer) from liability for unprotected speech contained in comments left by other people. Even if those comments are anonymous. And EVEN IF the Web publisher filters or edits comments; Albero stringently filters comments on his blog. But according to the CDA, it doesn't matter, legally, whether Albero filters comments or lets them appear automatically. The law is simply on his side here.
I'm relying largely on this summation of the CDA written by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Anyone operating a blog with a comments section should review it. The CDA was pretty controversial at the time of its passage, as I recall, and this provision - Section 230 - was only included after a lot of intense lobbying by civil liberties advocates.
As for the rightness or wrongness of the law: I think it's right. I think the writers of comments are morally responsible for their content, not the hosts of the Web sites on which they appear.
5 comments:
Thats why you should sign your name to your comments and stop hiding in the closet like a little b!tch.
I agree. How can YOU be held responsible for something I say?
As for Joe being unpleasant, look in a mirror. What did you do to cause it?
Joe, didn't have time to read this whole post but just wanted to say this is a fight I'm with you on. I can't stand alot of the crap spouted up here as well as the bogus post that you put up, but it is your right to post crap if you want. Unless you promote violence (which you don't) let freedom of speech reign supreme.
I also dont believe you should be held responsible for another's comment. They do however have an argument as you exercise your power over which comments you choose to posts. It will be interesting to see who the Court sides with if it makes it that far.
Could not be more true. In an era of blogs ans twitter and facebook and every other kind of social media out there. A publisher should not be held responsible for others comments. A blog belongs to the owner of it who can see fit to publish what he or she wants. It is no different than a magazine or a newspaper that publishes a risque photo or a piece condemning a political figure. The only difference here is that the opinions are, at times, lets say extreamly unpolished.
Post a Comment