All posts in CDA 230

Criminalizing Google’s YouTube in Italy

Daniel Solove
Founder of TeachPrivacy

YouTube Peter Fleischer Criminal Prosecution in Italy

In Italy, a rather disturbing prosecution is taking place. Google officials, including Chief Privacy Counsel Peter Fleischer, are being criminally prosecuted for a video somebody else uploaded to YouTube. According to an article by Tracey Bentley in the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ The Privacy Advisor:

Continue Reading

Does the Roomates.com Case Affect CDA § 230 Immunity for JuicyCampus?

Daniel Solove
Founder of TeachPrivacy

Juicy Campus

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (en banc) has just issued a very interesting opinion interpreting a federal law providing immunity from liability for online speech — the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230. The case is Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, LLC, 2008 WL 879293 (9th Cir. April 3, 2008) (en banc).

Continue Reading

Juicy Campus: The Latest Breed of Gossip Website

Daniel Solove
Founder of TeachPrivacy

Juicy Campus

There’s a new breed of gossip website, coming to a campus near you. The site is called Juicy Campus, and it involves students posting gossip about each other at particular college campuses.

As Jessica Bennett writes at Newsweek:

Continue Reading

Responses to Blog Reviews of The Future of Reputation: Part II

Daniel Solove
Founder of TeachPrivacy

Future of Reputation

This post responds to more reviews of my new book, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (Yale University Press, Oct. 2007). I posted Part I of my responses to reviews here. This is Part II.

Continue Reading

Barrett v. Rosenthal: Blogger Immunity for Defamatory Comments

Daniel Solove
Founder of TeachPrivacy

Blogger

Recently, in Barrett v. Rosenthal, the California Supreme Court held, similar to most courts addressing the issue, that bloggers are immune from being sued for “distributor” liability under defamation law. Under defamation law, the original speaker of a defamatory statement (a false statement that harms a person’s reputation) is liable. A “distributor,” one who further disseminates a falsehood spoken by another and who “knows or should have known” about the defamatory nature of a statement, is also liable. A federal law, 47 U.S.C. § 230, however, provides: “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.” Most courts have interpreted § 230 to immunize the operators of websites or blogs against distributor liability for comments posted by others.

Continue Reading