I was reading slashdot today which a few people interestingly brought up that if a newsgroup starts to filter their newsgroups and something illegal is posted they are liable for it. However, if they dont filter anything then they are not. Is this true? or some variant of it?
Please explain…
thanks
This has to do with the notion of a “common carrier”. The basic idea is that if moderation is done on the discussion, the agency which hosts the discussion is exercising control over it, and therefore has liability.
If no moderation is done, then that liability is not incurred.
It’s like being able to be sued for improperly shoveling your sidewalk from snow, but if you just leave it there, you’re safe from that.
I am most definitely NOT a lawyer, and my understanding of this is only that of a casually interested layman.
The telephone companies used this defense some time ago to show they were not liable for “allowing” criminals to use the telephone service to plan crimes. THey argued successfuly that since they exercise no control over the conversations taking place on the network, they could not be liable for the small percentage who use it to be nefarious.
This is common practice in UK law. ISPs have tried to claim innocence in internet libel cases by claiming a lack of control over the content they host. On the other hand, when they do exercise filters on content they are regarded in British law as having editorial control, and therefore are liable for any infringements. Demon Internet vs Godfrey is the key case here - Google will have plenty on that one.
thanks for the responses, so basically what people were mentioning will hold true in most cases I guess