http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-74815 Why SOPA Threatens the DMCA Safe Harbor Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:03:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-74815 <p>[...] of utopias,” as my colleagues have explained time and time again on these pages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The unintended consequences of overbroad, carelessly drafted legislation in this [...]</p> [...] of utopias,” as my colleagues have explained time and time again on these pages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The unintended consequences of overbroad, carelessly drafted legislation in this [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-74789 Undiplomatic Immunity - Jotwell: Cyberlaw Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:42:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-74789 <p>[...] why some of the other problematic cases in the section 230 canon, such as Blumenthal v. Drudge and Doe v. Ciolli, are so problematic. These are cases in which the intermediary at least plausibly “obtains the [...]</p> [...] why some of the other problematic cases in the section 230 canon, such as Blumenthal v. Drudge and Doe v. Ciolli, are so problematic. These are cases in which the intermediary at least plausibly “obtains the [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-73127 TLFers Attending Two Important Sec. 230 / Net Liability Events in CA This Week Wed, 02 Mar 2011 02:41:05 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-73127 <p>[...] The AutoAdmit Case and the Future of Sec. 230 – 2/16/09 [...]</p> [...] The AutoAdmit Case and the Future of Sec. 230 – 2/16/09 [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-67798 GetUnvarnished.com: Should We Allow User Feedback about Personal Reputation? Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:11:00 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-67798 <p>[...] be talking about more here on this blog in the months to come. I can see this becoming the next AutoAdmit or JuicyCampus case, and raising some of the same questions that came to the fore during the [...]</p> [...] be talking about more here on this blog in the months to come. I can see this becoming the next AutoAdmit or JuicyCampus case, and raising some of the same questions that came to the fore during the [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-62859 Emerging Threats to Section 230 — Technology Liberation Front Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:42:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-62859 <p>[...] great many of the online freedoms we enjoy (dare I say, take for granted?) today. That’s why I’m increasingly concerned about some of the emerging thinking and case law I am seeing on this front, which takes a decidedly [...]</p> [...] great many of the online freedoms we enjoy (dare I say, take for granted?) today. That’s why I’m increasingly concerned about some of the emerging thinking and case law I am seeing on this front, which takes a decidedly [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-59028 Anonymity, Reader Comments & Section 230 | The Technology Liberation Front Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:05:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-59028 <p>[...] unconstitutional. Respected law school professors such as Mark Lemley and Daniel Solove have toyed with the idea of DMCA-like “notice-and-takedown” regime for potentially defamatory comments online.  [...]</p> [...] unconstitutional. Respected law school professors such as Mark Lemley and Daniel Solove have toyed with the idea of DMCA-like “notice-and-takedown” regime for potentially defamatory comments online.  [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-58604 Craig’s List Sued for Prostitution | The Technology Liberation Front Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:36:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-58604 <p>[...] MySpace suicide to push against Section 230’s safe harbor promise. Adam Thierer recently gave an excellent summary of where the section may be heading in the US. Other countries are even [...]</p> [...] MySpace suicide to push against Section 230’s safe harbor promise. Adam Thierer recently gave an excellent summary of where the section may be heading in the US. Other countries are even [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-58592 The Future of Sec. 230 and Online Immunity: My Debate with Harvard’s John Palfrey | The Technology Liberation Front Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:08:05 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-58592 <p>[...] debate.  I am working on a longer paper looking broadly at the rising threats to Sec. 230 and the increasing calls for expanded online liability and middleman deputization.  I will use whatever feedback I get from this exchange to refine my [...]</p> [...] debate.  I am working on a longer paper looking broadly at the rising threats to Sec. 230 and the increasing calls for expanded online liability and middleman deputization.  I will use whatever feedback I get from this exchange to refine my [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-58289 Digital Natives » Building Communities: Tumblr and Freedom of Expression Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:46:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-58289 <p>[...] of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is also at the heart of the still-going AutoAdmit case. The crux of the matter is then, what does Tumblr want to be – a platform or a [...]</p> [...] of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is also at the heart of the still-going AutoAdmit case. The crux of the matter is then, what does Tumblr want to be – a platform or a [...]

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-64953 Ryan Radia Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:47:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-64953 <p>If I understand Eugene Volokh's post about this subject correctly, if an online intermediary is hosting content that defames me and I subsequently sue the intermediary, not only is the intermediary immune from liability under Sec. 230, but it's also next to impossible for me to obtain an injunction ordering the intermediary to remove the defamatory content. All I can get is a court order forcing the intermediary to disclose any server logs that might shed light on the identity of the individual responsible for the defamatory posting. That, however, can be a real crapshoot. <br><br>JuicyCampus (the college gossip forum that was all over the news about a year ago) maintains a privacy policy that guarantees users that the site cannot associate IP addresses with particular posts. Under current law, victims of defamation on sites like JuicyCampus who go to court are out of luck--they can't ascertain the identity of the guilty party, nor can they get the defamatory content taken down.<br><br>Implementing a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for allegedly defamatory postings seems like a bad idea, as the chilling effects of such a regime would probably outweigh any benefits. Do you think there are any other, more reasonable alternatives that would afford victims of anonymous defamation at least some recourse? Perhaps it should be easier for victims to get injunctions against intermediaries in cases where there is prime facie evidence that defamation has in fact occurred. Or maybe some sort of data retention mandate should be attached to the requirements for intermediaries that wish to retain their immunity from defamation suits. Both of these ideas seem somewhat un-libertarian, and maybe there's just no way of dealing with online defamation without making anonymous speech a whole lot harder to exercise. I hope that's not the case, though.</p> If I understand Eugene Volokh's post about this subject correctly, if an online intermediary is hosting content that defames me and I subsequently sue the intermediary, not only is the intermediary immune from liability under Sec. 230, but it's also next to impossible for me to obtain an injunction ordering the intermediary to remove the defamatory content. All I can get is a court order forcing the intermediary to disclose any server logs that might shed light on the identity of the individual responsible for the defamatory posting. That, however, can be a real crapshoot.

JuicyCampus (the college gossip forum that was all over the news about a year ago) maintains a privacy policy that guarantees users that the site cannot associate IP addresses with particular posts. Under current law, victims of defamation on sites like JuicyCampus who go to court are out of luck–they can't ascertain the identity of the guilty party, nor can they get the defamatory content taken down.

Implementing a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for allegedly defamatory postings seems like a bad idea, as the chilling effects of such a regime would probably outweigh any benefits. Do you think there are any other, more reasonable alternatives that would afford victims of anonymous defamation at least some recourse? Perhaps it should be easier for victims to get injunctions against intermediaries in cases where there is prime facie evidence that defamation has in fact occurred. Or maybe some sort of data retention mandate should be attached to the requirements for intermediaries that wish to retain their immunity from defamation suits. Both of these ideas seem somewhat un-libertarian, and maybe there's just no way of dealing with online defamation without making anonymous speech a whole lot harder to exercise. I hope that's not the case, though.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-64954 Ryan Radia Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:47:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-64954 <p>If I understand Eugene Volokh's post about this subject correctly, if an online intermediary is hosting content that defames me and I subsequently sue the intermediary, not only is the intermediary immune from liability under Sec. 230, but it's also next to impossible for me to obtain an injunction ordering the intermediary to remove the defamatory content. All I can get is a court order forcing the intermediary to disclose any server logs that might shed light on the identity of the individual responsible for the defamatory posting. That, however, can be a real crapshoot. <br><br>JuicyCampus (the college gossip forum that was all over the news about a year ago) maintains a privacy policy that guarantees users that the site cannot associate IP addresses with particular posts. Under current law, victims of defamation on sites like JuicyCampus who go to court are out of luck--they can't ascertain the identity of the guilty party, nor can they get the defamatory content taken down.<br><br>Implementing a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for allegedly defamatory postings seems like a bad idea, as the chilling effects of such a regime would probably outweigh any benefits. Do you think there are any other, more reasonable alternatives that would afford victims of anonymous defamation at least some recourse? Perhaps it should be easier for victims to get injunctions against intermediaries in cases where there is prime facie evidence that defamation has in fact occurred. Or maybe some sort of data retention mandate should be attached to the requirements for intermediaries that wish to retain their immunity from defamation suits. Both of these ideas seem somewhat un-libertarian, and maybe there's just no way of dealing with online defamation without making anonymous speech a whole lot harder to exercise. I hope that's not the case, though.</p> If I understand Eugene Volokh's post about this subject correctly, if an online intermediary is hosting content that defames me and I subsequently sue the intermediary, not only is the intermediary immune from liability under Sec. 230, but it's also next to impossible for me to obtain an injunction ordering the intermediary to remove the defamatory content. All I can get is a court order forcing the intermediary to disclose any server logs that might shed light on the identity of the individual responsible for the defamatory posting. That, however, can be a real crapshoot.

JuicyCampus (the college gossip forum that was all over the news about a year ago) maintains a privacy policy that guarantees users that the site cannot associate IP addresses with particular posts. Under current law, victims of defamation on sites like JuicyCampus who go to court are out of luck–they can't ascertain the identity of the guilty party, nor can they get the defamatory content taken down.

Implementing a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for allegedly defamatory postings seems like a bad idea, as the chilling effects of such a regime would probably outweigh any benefits. Do you think there are any other, more reasonable alternatives that would afford victims of anonymous defamation at least some recourse? Perhaps it should be easier for victims to get injunctions against intermediaries in cases where there is prime facie evidence that defamation has in fact occurred. Or maybe some sort of data retention mandate should be attached to the requirements for intermediaries that wish to retain their immunity from defamation suits. Both of these ideas seem somewhat un-libertarian, and maybe there's just no way of dealing with online defamation without making anonymous speech a whole lot harder to exercise. I hope that's not the case, though.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-64952 Ryan Radia Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:23:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-64952 <p>I think the current definitions of slander and libel are quite reasonable. Whether Adam is a scumbag or not is a matter of opinion, as is the question of whether he's a responsible adult. I should be able to express harsh value judgments about others without fear of lawsuit so long as I do not misrepresent positive statements about them. On the other hand, were I to assert that Adam has beaten children in the past and that statement turned out to be false, then I should be on the hook for libel.</p> I think the current definitions of slander and libel are quite reasonable. Whether Adam is a scumbag or not is a matter of opinion, as is the question of whether he's a responsible adult. I should be able to express harsh value judgments about others without fear of lawsuit so long as I do not misrepresent positive statements about them. On the other hand, were I to assert that Adam has beaten children in the past and that statement turned out to be false, then I should be on the hook for libel.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-61649 Ryan Radia Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:47:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-61649 <p>If I understand Eugene Volokh's post about this subject correctly, if an online intermediary is hosting content that defames me and I subsequently sue the intermediary, not only is the intermediary immune from liability under Sec. 230, but it's also next to impossible for me to obtain an injunction ordering the intermediary to remove the defamatory content. All I can get is a court order forcing the intermediary to disclose any server logs that might shed light on the identity of the individual responsible for the defamatory posting. That, however, can be a real crapshoot. <br><br>JuicyCampus (the college gossip forum that was all over the news about a year ago) maintains a privacy policy that guarantees users that the site cannot associate IP addresses with particular posts. Under current law, victims of defamation on sites like JuicyCampus who go to court are out of luck--they can't ascertain the identity of the guilty party, nor can they get the defamatory content taken down.<br><br>Implementing a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for allegedly defamatory postings seems like a bad idea, as the chilling effects of such a regime would probably outweigh any benefits. Do you think there are any other, more reasonable alternatives that would afford victims of anonymous defamation at least some recourse? Perhaps it should be easier for victims to get injunctions against intermediaries in cases where there is prime facie evidence that defamation has in fact occurred. Or maybe some sort of data retention mandate should be attached to the requirements for intermediaries that wish to retain their immunity from defamation suits. Both of these ideas seem somewhat un-libertarian, and maybe there's just no way of dealing with online defamation without making anonymous speech a whole lot harder to exercise. I hope that's not the case, though.</p> If I understand Eugene Volokh's post about this subject correctly, if an online intermediary is hosting content that defames me and I subsequently sue the intermediary, not only is the intermediary immune from liability under Sec. 230, but it's also next to impossible for me to obtain an injunction ordering the intermediary to remove the defamatory content. All I can get is a court order forcing the intermediary to disclose any server logs that might shed light on the identity of the individual responsible for the defamatory posting. That, however, can be a real crapshoot.

JuicyCampus (the college gossip forum that was all over the news about a year ago) maintains a privacy policy that guarantees users that the site cannot associate IP addresses with particular posts. Under current law, victims of defamation on sites like JuicyCampus who go to court are out of luck–they can't ascertain the identity of the guilty party, nor can they get the defamatory content taken down.

Implementing a DMCA-style notice-and-takedown system for allegedly defamatory postings seems like a bad idea, as the chilling effects of such a regime would probably outweigh any benefits. Do you think there are any other, more reasonable alternatives that would afford victims of anonymous defamation at least some recourse? Perhaps it should be easier for victims to get injunctions against intermediaries in cases where there is prime facie evidence that defamation has in fact occurred. Or maybe some sort of data retention mandate should be attached to the requirements for intermediaries that wish to retain their immunity from defamation suits. Both of these ideas seem somewhat un-libertarian, and maybe there's just no way of dealing with online defamation without making anonymous speech a whole lot harder to exercise. I hope that's not the case, though.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-61648 Ryan Radia Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:23:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-61648 <p>I think the current definitions of slander and libel are quite reasonable. Whether Adam is a scumbag or not is a matter of opinion, as is the question of whether he's a responsible adult. I should be able to express harsh value judgments about others without fear of lawsuit so long as I do not misrepresent positive statements about them. On the other hand, were I to assert that Adam has beaten children in the past and that statement turned out to be false, then I should be on the hook for libel.</p> I think the current definitions of slander and libel are quite reasonable. Whether Adam is a scumbag or not is a matter of opinion, as is the question of whether he's a responsible adult. I should be able to express harsh value judgments about others without fear of lawsuit so long as I do not misrepresent positive statements about them. On the other hand, were I to assert that Adam has beaten children in the past and that statement turned out to be false, then I should be on the hook for libel.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-58279 Ryan Radia Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:47:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-58279 <p>If I understand Eugene Volokh's post about this subject correctly, if an online intermediary is hosting content that defames me and I subsequently sue the intermediary, not only is the intermediary immune from liability under Sec. 230, but it's also next to impossible for me to obtain an injunction ordering the intermediary to remove the defamatory content. All I can get is a court order forcing the intermediary to disclose any server logs that might shed light on the identity of the individual responsible for the defamatory posting. That, however, can be a real crapshoot. <br><br>JuicyCampus (the college gossip forum that was all over the news about a year ago) maintains a privacy policy that guarantees users that the site cannot associate IP addresses with particular posts. Under current law, victims of defamation on sites like JuicyCampus who go to court are out of luck--they can't ascertain the identity of the guilty party, nor can they get the defamatory content taken down.<br><br>Implementing a DMCA notice-and-takedown system for allegedly defamatory postings seems like a bad idea, as the chilling effects of such a regime would probably outweigh any benefits. Do you think there are any other, more reasonable alternatives that would afford victims of anonymous defamation at least some recourse? Perhaps it should be easier for victims to get injunctions against intermediaries in cases where there is prime facie evidence that defamation has in fact occurred. Or maybe some sort of data retention mandate should be attached to the requirements for intermediaries that wish to retain their immunity from defamation suits. Both of these ideas seem somewhat un-libertarian, and maybe there's just no way of dealing with online defamation without making anonymous speech a whole lot harder to exercise. I hope that's not the case, though.</p> If I understand Eugene Volokh's post about this subject correctly, if an online intermediary is hosting content that defames me and I subsequently sue the intermediary, not only is the intermediary immune from liability under Sec. 230, but it's also next to impossible for me to obtain an injunction ordering the intermediary to remove the defamatory content. All I can get is a court order forcing the intermediary to disclose any server logs that might shed light on the identity of the individual responsible for the defamatory posting. That, however, can be a real crapshoot.

JuicyCampus (the college gossip forum that was all over the news about a year ago) maintains a privacy policy that guarantees users that the site cannot associate IP addresses with particular posts. Under current law, victims of defamation on sites like JuicyCampus who go to court are out of luck–they can't ascertain the identity of the guilty party, nor can they get the defamatory content taken down.

Implementing a DMCA notice-and-takedown system for allegedly defamatory postings seems like a bad idea, as the chilling effects of such a regime would probably outweigh any benefits. Do you think there are any other, more reasonable alternatives that would afford victims of anonymous defamation at least some recourse? Perhaps it should be easier for victims to get injunctions against intermediaries in cases where there is prime facie evidence that defamation has in fact occurred. Or maybe some sort of data retention mandate should be attached to the requirements for intermediaries that wish to retain their immunity from defamation suits. Both of these ideas seem somewhat un-libertarian, and maybe there's just no way of dealing with online defamation without making anonymous speech a whole lot harder to exercise. I hope that's not the case, though.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-58278 Ryan Radia Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:23:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-58278 <p>I think the current definitions of slander and libel are quite reasonable. Whether Adam is a scumbag or not is a matter of opinion, as is the question of whether he's a responsible adult. I should be able to express harsh value judgments about others without fear of lawsuit so long as I do not misrepresent positive statements about them. On the other hand, were I to assert that Adam has beaten children in the past and that statement turned out to be false, then I should be on the hook for libel.</p> I think the current definitions of slander and libel are quite reasonable. Whether Adam is a scumbag or not is a matter of opinion, as is the question of whether he's a responsible adult. I should be able to express harsh value judgments about others without fear of lawsuit so long as I do not misrepresent positive statements about them. On the other hand, were I to assert that Adam has beaten children in the past and that statement turned out to be false, then I should be on the hook for libel.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2009/02/16/the-autoadmit-case-and-the-future-of-sec-230/comment-page-1/#comment-58220 MikeRT Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:14:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16726#comment-58220 <p>The standard of evidence for an automatic takedown should be fairly high, and should include a provision that allows for one to become guilty of perjury or harassment on easier grounds than the DMCA allows. The law should be written such that had you retained counsel you would have known that it was even "probably not tortious," that should be automatic grounds for the other party, if found innocent, to raid your bank account and property until you're in the poor house as vengeance for taking them to court and violating their rights.</p> The standard of evidence for an automatic takedown should be fairly high, and should include a provision that allows for one to become guilty of perjury or harassment on easier grounds than the DMCA allows. The law should be written such that had you retained counsel you would have known that it was even “probably not tortious,” that should be automatic grounds for the other party, if found innocent, to raid your bank account and property until you're in the poor house as vengeance for taking them to court and violating their rights.

]]>