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.

Non-Tech : Gambling, The Next Great Internet Industry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Herc who wrote (352)	5/1/2000 7:17:00 PM
From: Herc	Respond to of 827

I realize this is a stretch, but it may help establish a precedent that ISP's can't be held responsible for content over their networks, i.e. offshore casinos. Kyl/Goodlatte is already toothless and vague on ISP's responsibility. <<High Crt Rejects E-Mail Defamation Suit Vs Prodigy By SCOTT RITTER WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused to revive a defamation suit by a New York teen who said Prodigy Communications Corp. (PRGY) allowed someone to open an online account in his name and send offensive and threatening e-mail messages. Acting without comment Monday, the justices left intact a New York Court of Appeals ruling that said Internet service providers aren't responsible for what their customers say in e-mail missives. "Prodigy's role in transmitting e-mail is akin to that of a telephone company, which one neither wants nor expects to superintend the content of its subscribers' conversation," the appellate court said in a December decision. A Westchester County teen, Alexander Lunney, sued in 1994 after someone set up phony Prodigy accounts and used Lunney's name to e-mail a death threat to his Boy Scout troop leader. The message was titled "How I'm Gonna' Kill U" and described sex acts with the man's sons and wife. Lunney and his parents never had an account with the White Plains, N.Y., online service provider, and the person who sent the messages was never identified. In the suit, Lunney alleged that Prodigy was negligent for allowing the phony accounts to be set up and was liable for the defamatory mailings. Prodigy's business practices were "negligent, reckless and below the industry standard of care," Lunney said. A trial court denied Prodigy's motion to dismiss the case, but a state appeals court later scuttled the suit in a ruling upheld by the New York Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the online service provider couldn't be held liable for defamation because it didn't publish the offending e-mails. "We are unwilling to deny Prodigy the common law qualified privilege accorded to telephone and telegraph companies," the court wrote. "The public would not be well served by compelling an (Internet Service Provider) to examine and screen millions of e-mail communications, on pain of liability for defamation." Prodigy, which has about 1.2 million subscribers, also said the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects it from such lawsuits. The appellate court said it didn't need to decide whether Prodigy was indeed shielded by the federal law. The case is Lunney vs. Prodigy Services Co., 99-1430.>>