Mary, actually case law in the US seems to be moving in the opposite direction of the UK, i.e. more in favor of protecting ISPs from defamation charges. The follow comes from AOL's legal web site (courtesy of a link from CobaltBlue in message 1103, legal.web.aol.com ):
-----
Doe v. America Online, Inc.
This lawsuit was commenced in 1997 and accused AOL of facilitating the sale of pornographic materials by members. The lawsuit was filed in the circuit court for West Palm Beach, Florida. AOL filed a motion to dismiss arguing that under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, AOL could not be held responsible for the communications of a former member. The court granted AOL's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. This case marked only the second time that the section 230 defense had been successfully invoked (the other instance being Zeran v. America Online, Inc.).
On March 8, 2001, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act shields America Online, Inc. from liability for illegal transactions on its site. For more information, click on the Florida Supreme Court decision below.
legal.web.aol.com
-----
Green v. America Online, Inc. and Does 1 and 2
On March 31, 2000, Plaintiff filed suit against America Online alleging defamation and breach of contract in connection with America Online's alleged failure to stop third parties from making statements concerning the Plaintiff. On December 20, 2000, New Jersey District Court Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. dismissed all counts against America Online ruling that the internet service provider is immune from liability pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230. Judge Greenaway's decision is notable for its recognition that § 230 immunity applies to "signals", such as computer viruses, as well as written communications.
legal.web.aol.com
-----
- Jeff |
