Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (3065)	6/22/1999 11:04:00 AM
From: X Y Zebra	Respond to of 3795

Myers successfully argued that Electriciti was only the means of transmission of the material in question, not its originator or "publisher", and therefore was not liable. And Perhaps, this is the reason they were successful: The Act = The Telecommunications Act of 1996. arentfox.com PROTECTION OF ON-LINE SERVICE PROVIDERS AS PUBLISHERS OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS The legislative history of the Act indicates it was also intended to overrule the case of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995). In Prodigy, the court ruled that a libel suit against Prodigy could continue because Prodigy had advertised itself as a family-oriented network that, among other safeguards, authorized its bulletin board system operators to remove user-posted messages and utilized a software program to screen offensive language. In the court's view, because Prodigy attempted to control the content of the bulletin board, it essentially held itself out as being a publisher of the information. As such, it could be held liable for any defamatory messages that were downloaded from its service even if it did not know of the existence of the defamatory statement. The Act overrules this holding by insulating an interactive computer service provider from liability for defamation and other claims (except, potentially, liability under intellectual property laws) where the provider acts in good faith to restrict access to material that the provider considers obscene, indecent, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable -- even where the deleted material is constitutionally protected. The Act similarly protects an interactive computer service provider that makes mechanisms available to content providers permitting them to restrict access to its material. P.s. I bet SI Bob is happy to read the above.... <g> More coming, on a related issue, I am still... searching... searching... searching...