The Internet Parent
Sponsored by K9 Web Protection

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Post. Sue. Rinse and Repeat. But Watch that Drain...

Drawing a Line in the Internet Sand

It's perhaps the biggest fundamental challenge to law-and-order on the Internet, and it's like sand at the beach -- it's everywhere; the minute you do more than look from the safety of your car, it gets everywhere on you; and then it sticks everywhere, even after you think you've washed it clear.

In his CNET News perspective "Others Post, You Get Sued", Eric Sinrod of the law firm Duane Morris places the spot-light on the big question: "Who's responsible for content?"

In a legal dispute between Roommates.com and fair-housing proponents, that question related to whether the site should be held accountable for the content that was posted there, which in some cases was either discriminatory or led to discriminatory behavior. Sinrod addresses two salient points in the law:
  1. The CDA (Communications Decency Act) provides that "(no) provider...of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Hence, the immunity of a service provider, for example, from liability for any content that it ships over its lines or "passively" hosts on its servers.

  2. The CDA doesn't protect an information content provider, defined as "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet."
How do we make the discrimination between a service provider and a content provider? At first, it might sound easy, and in some cases it's indeed obvious. At its simplest, if I'm just moving bits, I'm not a content provider, therefore I'm not liable.

But move that line just a little bit, and grains of sand start falling on the other side.


For example: Is a Web-hosting company that offers tools to help you build your website a service provider or a content provider? Let's take GeoCities, for example. They don't make your page. But they provide the templates - graphics, headers, etc. Isn't that content?

What about MySpace? More grains of sand fall to the other side. MySpace provides surveys, ornaments, and more. Are they content providers?

How about a news site or portal page that creates or publishes news stories and then invites feedback from its readership? Responsible or not? What about a blog site? I've created some of the content here, and provided you with an opportunity to comment. Am I responsible?

And Roommates.com? Well, they provide surveys that allow you to express a preference for who you would be willing to live with. As in, "Straight/Lesbian/Gay". That's content. And it provides the ability to discriminate against a "protected class" of citizens.

Furthermore, you have the ability to customize your profile with a block of text, where you might express even more discriminating (in both the good sense and bad sense) preferences. "I like to play jazz really loud, and won't take a roommate who listens to gangsta rap."

So the judgment call here is "What constitutes the creation/provision of 'content'?" There are as many nuances to this call as there are ideas and expressions.

The closer we look, the harder it is to discern -- l
ike so many grains of sand. An army of judges could never classify it all.

Just as problematic is the sheer volume of content. Sinrod points out:
Consider also that Roommates contains approximately 150,000 active listings at a time. Should the site be deemed potentially liable for discriminatory postings among these listings and be forced to police those postings on a constant basis?

Millions of hosted websites. Millions of MySpace pages. Millions of postings on bulletin boards. Who is going to read them all? Who is going to police them?

The public can sometimes act as a governor of illegal behavior if the questions are clear enough. Reporting an illegal website, web-page, or posting can serve as a kind of "virtual citizen's arrest", but only when the violation is clearly on the wrong side of a clear line. When that's not the case, it's a recipe for clogged legal pipes and unhappy communities.

The content comprising the Internet might be thought of as billions and billions of grains of sand, shifting all the time. Any lines drawn only become clear at 100 feet above the ground, and even then, only for a moment. Judges have to work one grain at a time.

Somewhere in between, we as citizens (adults, parents, and kids) have a role to play.

That role? Play responsibly.

Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

  • STOP IT DAD!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at November 21, 2007 11:30 AM  

  • I think, you would be interested. I found, that http://kids.quintura.com doesn't surely filter content! http://gladkij.blogspot.com/2008/01/adult-kids-only.html - here you can watch screenshot from that site. I hope, that would be useful.

    By Blogger Gladkij, at January 08, 2008 2:26 AM  

  • Content provider vs. Service provider? I don't see how the line is blury. Most of the "blury" situations that you mention are a simple matter of BOTH.

    Myspace for instance. They are a content provider for creating each users "space". However the actual content of the space is provided by the USER, not myspace.

    And here is the rub. The definition of "service provider" needs to be clarified. In the past all a service provider did was "move bits". However, we now have different services that are available. The service that myspace provides is a "hosting" service. So they don't just "move" bits, but they provide tools to oraganize and save those bits for others to view. But it is ultimatly the myspace user that determines the content.

    But the real question is "who is responsible for content?" How about we go back to the original perspective on that. Each person is repsonsible for their own actions (including what they communicate regardless of media) and it needs to stay that way. (example. Do we sue the movie theater because some idiot decided to yell "FIRE" when there wasn't one?)

    And the last item that I want to comment on is that we are dealing with reality. There are people that have feelings that are not politically correct. There are racists, sexists and bigots in our society. There are Athiests, "Bible thumpers", Anarchists, and conspiracy theorists. And regardless of whether you (the general "you") like it or not, it is reality.

    If I were looking to get a room mate, There are people that I would choose not to have. I have a teenage daughter that is with me sometimes and (to me) that creates certain requirements on who I will have under my roof. (example, I don't want ex-cons.....).

    So the bottom line, if you don't like how a site is run, don't go there. And if there is a legal issue with content take it up with the author of the content, not the service provider that allows for ALL legal content (even yours that someone else doesn't like).

    By Anonymous c gillespie, at September 19, 2008 7:13 AM  

  • When I visited your blog then I am very exciting to see your blog. Also just visit our blog and website for Social Network and Friends Online Community to reach more girls, boys for fun and entertainmnet and to reach their goal with good friendship.



    Indian Friends Online Community


    Social Network website


    Make Money Online

    By Blogger jaya, at June 28, 2009 10:57 PM  

  • Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
    Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at November 13, 2009 3:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home