On mySimon: The Twilight Saga: New Moon
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

May 24th, 2008

Section 230 to Twitter and others: Delete away

Posted by Denise Howell @ 12:15 am

Categories: Defamation, Live Web, Social networking, User generated content

Tags: Immunity, Twitter, Section 230, Denise Howell

Section 230 to Twitter and others:  Delete away

Community and content management don’t void a site’s immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Participation in an unlawful act does.

I was thus taken aback by the legal analysis included in Wired’s/Betsy Schiffman’s post about Ariel Waldman and Twitter (Twitterer takes on Twitter Harassment Policy):

John Dozier Jr., a managing partner at Dozier Internet Law, says Twitter may have risked its immunity under the Communications Decency Act the moment it “edited” or altered content on the site. (An “edit” could include any sort of alteration, such as promotional placement or displacement on the site.)

“If they’ve edited content based on their subjective perspective, they put their immunity at risk and virtually their entire online business, because then they’d be liable to defmation [sic] claims or anything else that a publisher would,” Dozier says.

What’s at stake in the Twitter-Waldman discussion, as I understand it, is not editing or alteration but removal: something squarely protected by Section 230. (To be clear, editing and alteration don’t per se void the immunity, either.) As Professor Eric Goldman (a Section 230 scholar and frequent analyst) put it in a recent, unrelated post:

47 USC 230. Many people operate under the outdated myth that a site must choose to be either a publisher or a passive conduit. Fortunately, the law facilitates heterogeneous approaches to UGC. Per 230, a [site owner] isn’t liable for third party content with limited exceptions. Ownership doesn’t matter; editing doesn’t matter, prescreening/policing doesn’t matter. …

Evan Williams and co. at Twitter haven’t been invoking Section 230 as a basis for their decision not to remove certain complaint-generating submissions or their author; let’s not start doing it for them.

(Image by carrotcreative, CC Attribution-2.0)

Denise HowellDenise Howell is an appellate, intellectual property and technology lawyer who enjoys broad industry recognition for her expertise on the intersection of emerging technologies and law. See her full profile and disclosure of her industry affiliations.

Email Denise Howell

Subscribe to Lawgarithms via Email alerts or RSS.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 3 Talkback(s)
For more links about Dozier see:
To more fully understand this case see:

Dozier Internet Law threatens InventorEd and others on behalf of its invention promotion client Inventor-Link.
www.InventorEd.org/caution/inventor-li... (Read the rest)
Posted by: rjriley@... Posted on: 10/09/08 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Dozier's Position Isn't Surprising  egoldman | 05/24/08
Figured as much  Denise HowellZDNet Moderator | 05/24/08
For more links about Dozier see:  rjriley@... | 10/09/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Recent Entries

Archives

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Smart Tech Expert advice on innovations in healthcare and the green technologies that make it happen. Find out more
  • Smart Business Discussion and advice on management issues that revolve around making your world smarter and more useful. More Smart Advice
  • Smart People The best and worst moves in the management and strategy trenches. Learn More