Mailing list liability
Note: Parts of the following are taken verbatim from (1) with some rewording on my part to make the material flow better. Cubby v Compuserve (1991) The court reasoned, "in essence an electronic, for profit library that carried a vast number of publications and collected usage and membership fees from its subscribers in return for access to the publications." The court further ruled that Compuserve had no more editorial control over Rumorville than "does a public library, book store, or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for Compuserve to examine every publication it carries for potentialy defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do so." The court also found, "A computerized database is the functional equivalent of a more traditional news vendor, and the inconsistent application of a lower standard of liability to an electronic news distributor such as Compuserve than that which is applied to a public library, a book store, or a newsstand would impose an undue burden on the free flow of information. Given the relevant First Amendment considerations, the appropriate standard of liability is whether it knew or had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorville statements." The court held that Compuserve was not liable because Compuserve was a "distributor" and not a "publisher." The court concluded that because Compuserve did not actively monitor the postings of the forum, it was a distributor. In summary, the court compared Compuserve to a bookstore selling the book rather than the publisher of the book. Cianci v New Times Publishing Co. (1980) "one who repeats or othewise republishes defamatory matter is subject to the liability as if he had originaly published it." Lerman v Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc. (1981) The court held that with respect to news vendors, book stores, and libraries are not liable if "vendors and distributors of defamatory publications are not liable if they neither know nor have reason to know of the defamation." Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy (1995) The critical issue in Prodigy was whether Prodigy exercised sufficient editorial control over its computer bulletin boards to render it a publisher with the same responsibilities as a newspaper or magazine. The court reasoned that there were two distinctions in this case sufficient to qualify Prodigy as a publisher. First, it held itself out to the public and its members as controlling the content of its computer bulletin boards. Second, Prodigy implimented this control through its automated software and established guidelines that board leaders were required to enforce. Prodigy was clearly making decisions as to content. Such decisions constitute editorial control. (1) ;login:, Oct. 1996, V21N5 pp27.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Note that none of these say anything about any commercial service being held liable for defamatory statements because the service cancelled a user's account or prevented a user from posting in certain areas. I really don't see why you consider unsubscribing someone from a mailing list the equivalent of monitoring posts and exercising editorial control. Dr. Vulis can still post to cypherpunks and can still read the list -- just not receive traffic from toad.com. Compuserve probably cancels accounts of people who violate the service agreement. Of course, you will just argue that there is some sort of implied contract wrt cypherpunks. This is ridiculous. All the complex aspects of implied contracts would require someone wanting to start a free mailing list get a lawyer to make sure that anything contrary to an implied contract is stated in the "welcome message." As for cypherpunks being advertised as an open mailing list, John Gilmore is not responsible for these "advertisements" and has never stated that he would not unsubscribe anyone for any reason. Nothing about everyone having some inherent "right" to be subscribed has ever been stated by the list owner. On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Jim Choate wrote:
Cubby v Compuserve (1991)
The court reasoned,
"in essence an electronic, for profit library that carried a vast number of publications and collected usage and membership fees from its subscribers in return for access to the publications."
The court further ruled that Compuserve had no more editorial control over Rumorville than "does a public library, book store, or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for Compuserve to examine every publication it carries for potentialy defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do so."
The court also found, "A computerized database is the functional equivalent of a more traditional news vendor, and the inconsistent application of a lower standard of liability to an electronic news distributor such as Compuserve than that which is applied to a public library, a book store, or a newsstand would impose an undue burden on the free flow of information. Given the relevant First Amendment considerations, the appropriate standard of liability is whether it knew or had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorville statements."
The court held that Compuserve was not liable because Compuserve was a "distributor" and not a "publisher." The court concluded that because Compuserve did not actively monitor the postings of the forum, it was a distributor.
In summary, the court compared Compuserve to a bookstore selling the book rather than the publisher of the book.
Cianci v New Times Publishing Co. (1980)
"one who repeats or othewise republishes defamatory matter is subject to the liability as if he had originaly published it."
Lerman v Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc. (1981)
The court held that with respect to news vendors, book stores, and libraries are not liable if "vendors and distributors of defamatory publications are not liable if they neither know nor have reason to know of the defamation."
Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy (1995)
The critical issue in Prodigy was whether Prodigy exercised sufficient editorial control over its computer bulletin boards to render it a publisher with the same responsibilities as a newspaper or magazine.
The court reasoned that there were two distinctions in this case sufficient to qualify Prodigy as a publisher. First, it held itself out to the public and its members as controlling the content of its computer bulletin boards. Second, Prodigy implimented this control through its automated software and established guidelines that board leaders were required to enforce. Prodigy was clearly making decisions as to content. Such decisions constitute editorial control.
(1) ;login:, Oct. 1996, V21N5 pp27.
Mark - -- finger -l for PGP key PGP encrypted mail prefered. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMoVFQyzIPc7jvyFpAQFLIwgAiLVzGBZzBZdtIf2nMmoeFCU2c+8eVWnT fjXdh+6ZtA578inVv1YuOnbGFFoAbfS4DLHyPsdtbdREbJydZt+sourjxTMCxLAX kYvFNoDxyweVvoE+c8R0Hez+qwNrQ3O9SFJWK1DBAuwU7+UTdbxc+81DKAR3mVlv cdDwjVijEAJUsGFzhjs7udrEAbTJ4RRoN5y/hC68tr27SzBKS5D5W7KACzuJgcx1 Qv2NIZgz9epYngz9/SLafBFBsbePJkWBuBHwtaPManN7blUnzkRWZ62X9y2EnSZb CTL8swajmrhtmKfBNX7NvH66ETle/g8D8zUuyjb+xYW0uBzIq9OXeQ== =2jGC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate -
Mark M.