Quote:
Originally Posted by Y2Kvert4me
In the realm of legal remedy, there are only two entities at play here...The author, and the publisher.
An author creates content and submits it to the publisher. By virtue of operating this board, I certainly am a publisher. If I create and submit content, than I would also be the author.
You posted this thread...You are the author. This thread exists on my board, my hardware, my domain..That makes me the publisher.
As a publisher, you claim I'm immune of responsibility for author-submitted content, which thankfully is (mostly) correct. However, here you are supporting the fact another publisher is being sued for content submitted by an author.
So in your opinion why is legal remedy of libel being sought of the publisher rather than the author in this example? This is what I'm not understanding.
If Trump had a legitimate claim of libel (and as a public figure, I don't believe he does)...Why is the suit not directed at Max Frankel, the author of the libelous content?
 |
First, I would have liked Max to be sued personally, but I'm guessing Team Trump figured there was zero chance a NYC jury would ding Max personally. Also, since he couched his article as "opinion," I think he's free and clear, personally.
Second, here's the legal protection created specifically for platforms like VB:
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
You, as the site owner, are the absolute epitome of covered person and covered entity shrouded by this legal protection:
Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.
The NYT can claim this protection, too, but it's not a slam dunk case as it is with you when, say, I write, 'All Mustang owners are teh gay," here, because the NYT, by its own published admissions, knew Max's hit piece was bullshit, but printed it anyway. There's also the relationship there. Max wasn't some random drunk that rolled in off the street (like the average VB member, lol), he was the editor emeritus, and the NYT has a clear animus and demonstrated pattern of, concerted bias against Trump.
I think Trump's suit follows the same legal argument that the Sandy Hook families successfully used to sue InfoWars. We are a completely different animal.
Edit: Then again, IANAL. Maybe our forum legal beagle could weigh in on this?