Websites exempted from the words of users
The California Supreme Court ruled that only the author who first expressed these words and no one else could be held responsible for libel on the Internet. Neither the site owner (even if he is an individual), nor the forum moderator, blog owner, Internet service provider, or search engine bear any responsibility if statements that violate the law are found on their websites.
Thus, a California court finally clarified the text of the law, known as the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA). This law, adopted almost ten years ago, provides for criminal (up to two years in prison) and administrative responsibility for publishing “libelous” statements on the Internet. Moreover, the law concerns not only the responsibility of the author of these statements, but also the responsibility of the “publisher” of these statements and the legal entity that “knowingly allowed the use of the telecommunications infrastructure under its jurisdiction to commit offenses.”
Naturally, such an extraordinary law immediately gave rise to numerous protests, appeals and revisions, which are still ongoing. Perhaps the decision of the California Supreme Court will put an end to a series of trials, but perhaps the case will again be sent for review to higher authorities.
The decision of the California Supreme Court has become a big relief for Internet companies. After all, if they were held responsible for all the content that users publish, then they would have to implement complex systems of pre-filtering and moderation of content, and it is completely incomprehensible by what principles censorship should be implemented. In America, the problem has already been solved, but the owners of domestic forums are still in this awkward situation. Because of this, they introduce draconian rules for pre-filtering content and in every possible way infringe the rights of their users. This is a necessary measure, otherwise the site owners themselves will be brought to justice.
Thus, a California court finally clarified the text of the law, known as the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA). This law, adopted almost ten years ago, provides for criminal (up to two years in prison) and administrative responsibility for publishing “libelous” statements on the Internet. Moreover, the law concerns not only the responsibility of the author of these statements, but also the responsibility of the “publisher” of these statements and the legal entity that “knowingly allowed the use of the telecommunications infrastructure under its jurisdiction to commit offenses.”
Naturally, such an extraordinary law immediately gave rise to numerous protests, appeals and revisions, which are still ongoing. Perhaps the decision of the California Supreme Court will put an end to a series of trials, but perhaps the case will again be sent for review to higher authorities.
The decision of the California Supreme Court has become a big relief for Internet companies. After all, if they were held responsible for all the content that users publish, then they would have to implement complex systems of pre-filtering and moderation of content, and it is completely incomprehensible by what principles censorship should be implemented. In America, the problem has already been solved, but the owners of domestic forums are still in this awkward situation. Because of this, they introduce draconian rules for pre-filtering content and in every possible way infringe the rights of their users. This is a necessary measure, otherwise the site owners themselves will be brought to justice.
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/4702/
All Articles