Do not taunt happy-fun-court.

[lcs Mixmaster Remailer]

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZV7P5HVPC&live=true&cst=1&pc=3&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0
talks about the use of the Communications Decency Act to defend a private
individual.  (Sorry about the absurdly long URL; for a short while you
will find it as the first article at http://www.law.com/professionals/iplaw.html.)

The suit is a somewhat complicated battle, Quackwatch vs Quack.
But basically the judge threw out a lawsuit against someone who re-posted
a libelous article on a newsgroup:

  "[A]s a user of an interactive computer service, that is, a newsgroup,
  [the defendant] is not the publisher or speaker of [the] piece. Thus,
  she cannot be civilly liable for posting it on the Internet. She is
  immune," wrote Richman.

He based this on the CDA's immunization of internet services when their
users post offending material.  Apparently the wording of the law can
apply to private individuals as well, if they are not the original
authors.

This sounds questionable, since the private party is playing a much
more active role in selecting what material to republish than an
internet service.  The article quotes a critic, "Someone could put
libelous information on the Internet and duck court action by having
someone else author it, Grell said."

The relevance is of course to remailer operators.  If someone is immune
who personally selects a libelous article and reposts it, then surely
a remailer operator who reposts articles en masse without any review of
the data would be protected as well.  The CDA should be a strong shield
for remailers, especially if rulings like this stand which extend its
protection even to private individuals.