Some Libel Cases: Should Internet Service Providers Like America On Line Be Responsible for the Content of Their Subscribers' Postings?

   Please read these cases and then tell us whether or not you think Internet providers should be held responsible for material their subscribers post.  

AOL Dismissed as Co-defendant in Clinton Aides' Suit, CNN, April 23, 1998

Judge Clears AOL in Drudge Suit - Wired News, April 23, 1998

AOL pays Matt Drudge $3000/month to publish "The Drudge Report," an Internet gossip column. Last year, Drudge reported that Sindey Blumenthal, who was about to become an aide to President Clinton, had physically abused his wife. This charge was unsubstantiated. Drudge published a retraction the next day, but Blumenthal filed suit against Drudge and AOL. A federal judge recently dismissed AOL as a co-defendant, in spite of Blumenthal's argument that AOL made the Drudge Report available to its 8.6 million subscribers. The judge reasoned that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 showed Congressional intent to shield Internet service providers from liability for material their subscribers posted.

See also: The Netizen: Drudge Match by Andrew L. Shapiro April 23, 1998, from Wired News.

Should Internet service providers be shielded from liability for what their users "publish"?

Yes
No
    

Should Internet service providers who pay journalists to publish be held liable for what their writers publish?

Yes
No
    

KENNETH M. ZERAN, Plaintiff, v. AMERICA ONLINE, INC, Defendant. 1997
"Plaintiff Kenneth M. Zeran ("Zeran") was the victim of a malicious hoax perpetrated via the Internet services of defendant America Online, Inc. ("AOL"). An unknown person or persons. acting without Zeran's knowledge or authority, affixed Zeran's name and telephone number to a series of notices on AOL's electronic "bulletin board" advertising t-shirts and other items with slogans glorifying the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in which 168 people were killed. Predictably,  Zeran received numerous disturbing and threatening telephone calls from people outraged with the posted notice. He now sues, claiming AOL was negligent in allowing these notices to remain and reappear on AOL'S "bulletin board" despite having received notice and complaints from Zeran following the appearance of the first advertisement."
The court ruled that AOL was not responsible for content posted on its bulletin board because the state law claim against it was preempted by the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Prodigy Libel Suit Settlement
This press release by the First Amendment Center describes a settlement between on-line provider Prodigy and Stratton Oakmont, an investment banking firm accused of "criminal fraud" by an unknown person on Prodigy's popular "Money Talk" bulletin board in October 1994.

The press release claims, "The agreement allowed the Prodigy online computer service to extricate itself from a $200 million suit that had cast a legal cloud over cyberspace. Prodigy won acknowledgment that it cannot be held responsible for the libelous content of any of the thousands of messages posted on its bulletin boards every day."
Note, however, that settlements are not binding on future cases.
What would a "market" for free speech look like?

I would be willing to pay more for an ISP that allowed anonymous posting and didn't censor its users -- the ISP would face more lawsuits
I would be willing pay more for an ISP that moderated its forums -- it would be expensive to monitor users
I would go with the cheaper ISP, even if that meant I had to accept limits on what I could say and read
    

Introduction - Course Schedule - Current Topics - Library - Class Directory
Faculty - Discussion Groups - Lecture Hall - Cybercourse Home - Help