Investment Chat Board Lawsuits Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: dantecristo who wrote (7107)	2/1/2005 12:38:47 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) of 12465

As much as I respect the efforts of CASP, EFF, and the ACLU to preserve free speech on the net, Barrett v. Rosenthal is about as well thought-out a decision as I've ever read on the subject (in contrast to Grace v. Ebay which was one of the worst). What the court is essentially saying is that traditional defamation doctrine (i.e. publisher vs. distributor) can and should be applied to the net. For example, while bookstores (publishers) shouldn't be held liable for the content of the books they sell, the writers of the books (distributors) should be. The court argues that even though removal of total immunity via the Communications Decency Act (CDA) might prompt more people to file defamation suits, there is such a high burden of proof that it's unlikely many will deem the effort a worthwhile risk. And for those who file suit just to shut people up, there's always the anti-SLAPP procedure. - Jeff

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next