CDA protects against liability

[Declan McCullagh]

There have been a bunch of other cases involving the deal-cutting portion
of the CDA. I believe the Drudge lawsuit complaint refers to them. If not,
AOL's response to the complaint certainly will.

-Declan


On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Georgia Cracker Remailer Administrator wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > At 13:46 -0400 10/2/97, Anonymous wrote:
> > >Another case where the CDA protected against liability.  Remailer ops
> > >should look into this.
> > >
> > >http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/7361.html:
> 
> This remailer-op, while not previously aware of the case, is well-aware of
> that provision of the CDA, but has not yet had the need or opportunity to
> use it as a legal defense. The reference is Public Law 104-104, Title V,
> Subtitle A, Sec. 502 as it amends (47 U.S.C. 223). The text of this law is
> available on-line at:
> 
>         http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.652.ENR:
> 
> My interpretation of this is: Anonymous remailers are internet service
> providers.
> 
> --
> For information on this anonymous remailing system, send the subject
> "remailer-help" to <remailer at anon.efga.org> or visit our web pages at
> http://anon.efga.org/anon/. To contact the operator directly, send mail
> to <admin at anon.efga.org>. For general information and discussion about
> anonymous remailers, send a message with "subscribe" in the body to
> <remailer-politics-request at server1.efga.org>.
> 
> 
>