Cyberlaw discussion/Day 3: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
== Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, 489 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2007) == | == Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, 489 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2007) == | ||
* I think the court does a good job of literally applying the CDA. It does so by establishing a two-part test to determine whether Roommate is an "information content provider" and therefore not immune from liability: "(1) whether Roommate categorizes, channels and limits distribution of information, thereby creating another layer of information; and (2) whether Roommate actively prompts, encourages, or solicits..." However, I find the implications troubling. | |||
The first prong removes the CDA liability shield when the site filters and sends targeted emails to the end user. The user could, theoretically, search through every profile and obtain the same information manually. The Roommate opinion seems to create a disincentive to develop technology that automates an otherwise mind-numbingly inefficient task. That is, it impedes progress. | |||
Under the second prong, the CDA liability shield exists when a site requests open-ended free-text. This seems to create a disincentive to develop organized profiles with distinct fields. Such organization facilitates reading/understanding by both humans and computers. Again, the opinion is an impediment to progress. [[User:Cjohnson|Cjohnson]] 10:57, 4 January 2008 (EST) | |||
== John Siegenthaler op-ed on Wikipedia == | == John Siegenthaler op-ed on Wikipedia == | ||
== WikiScanner (browse) == | == WikiScanner (browse) == | ||
Revision as of 11:57, 4 January 2008
Title 47, Communications Decency Act (Section 230)
- Part (c)(2)(a) seems to allow "interactive computer service providers" to block any content, regardless of whether it is constitutionally protected. Part (d) states that the provider must further inform users about options to filter on their own. Why not the converse? Shouldn't the ICSP have an obligation to tell its users that certain content is being blocked? Cjohnson 09:12, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Jonathan Zittrain, A History Of Online Gatekeeping, pp. 257-263
Doe v. MySpace, 474 F.Supp.2d 843 (W.D. Tex. 2007), pp. 1-10
Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, 489 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2007)
- I think the court does a good job of literally applying the CDA. It does so by establishing a two-part test to determine whether Roommate is an "information content provider" and therefore not immune from liability: "(1) whether Roommate categorizes, channels and limits distribution of information, thereby creating another layer of information; and (2) whether Roommate actively prompts, encourages, or solicits..." However, I find the implications troubling.
The first prong removes the CDA liability shield when the site filters and sends targeted emails to the end user. The user could, theoretically, search through every profile and obtain the same information manually. The Roommate opinion seems to create a disincentive to develop technology that automates an otherwise mind-numbingly inefficient task. That is, it impedes progress.
Under the second prong, the CDA liability shield exists when a site requests open-ended free-text. This seems to create a disincentive to develop organized profiles with distinct fields. Such organization facilitates reading/understanding by both humans and computers. Again, the opinion is an impediment to progress. Cjohnson 10:57, 4 January 2008 (EST)