Herald/Argus, Reformer, WCAX: All dressed up for the Supreme Court, with nowhere to go

Good for iBrattleboro (0.00 / 0)

And talk about egg. . .

I had forgotten just how creative the commentary was about this case, but the Rutland Herald editorial Odum has resurrected underscores how off-base the reporting was . .

To date, the courts have generally followed the overarching principle that Web sites are not responsible for content they don’t create. So, for instance, a comment from an online reader is not the site’s responsibility, as long as the site’s operators are not actively screening the content before it goes up. Nor is it an ISP’s fault when a user posts child pornography.

Well, not really. The courts are following federal law that protects content providers. The is no legal principle at stake, it is a preemptive statute that controls who is liable and who isn't. 

This part was most the most difficult to understand: 

In essence, the law as it stands has created two classes of speech, with Internet speech protected in ways other forms of speech are not. [NOTE: This is incorrect, a person who commits libel is responsible for it on the pages of the New York Times or GreenMountainDaily. cl] Congress attempted to address this in the 1996 Communications Decency Act, but the courts ruled that the law went too far and infringed on freedom of speech.

But as the distinction between content provider and content host on the Web grows murkier with each technological development, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will eventually seek to redefine its ruling to remove from online speech protections it now has over printed or spoken utterances.

First, the courts never overturned the CDA as it applied to internet service providers or sites such as iBrattleboro. (The courts did, correctly, overturn the vaguely worded "indecency" section of the law).  The section of the law applicable to internet service providers and content providers is still intact and is the reason why the lawsuit was frivolous in the first place. 

The Herald implies that the "1996 Communications Decency Act, [was overruled because] the courts [found] that the law went too far and infringed on freedom of speech" and thus overturned the law. Nothing is further from the truth. The law is alive and well and is the basis (in all likelihood) for the Judge's dismissal of the frivolous lawsuit against iBrattleboro.

Next, the comment about "the Supreme Court will eventually seek to redefine its ruling" is just nuts. What ruling? Courts are following a statute, not a Supreme Court decision when applying the CDA, so there is nothing for the Supreme Court to "redefine." 

Given the coverage this case received the first time around, I can't wait to see the articles explaining the likely grounds for appeal or future litigation (**cough cough**). 

 

 

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 23:54:53 PM UTC

Good post... (0.00 / 0)

although I was waiting for the "heh" that shoulda been the last word.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. Politics. Godlessness. Music. Films of questionable quality. It's all there, folks.

---

by: JDRyan @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:25:59 AM UTC