Good news for Wayne!
 

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#005017

San Francisco - In what is a victory for free speech on the Internet, the California Supreme Court ruled today that no provider or user of an interactive computer service may be held liable for putting material on the Internet that was written by someone else. In doing so, the Court overruled an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal.

Today's ruling affirms that blogs, websites, listservs, and ISPs like Yahoo!, as well as individuals like defendant Ilena Rosenthal, are protected under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which explicitly states that "[n]o 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."

Pit Girls anyone?

Where's my box of snuff videos?

A common-sense ruling. Amazing!

Wait, who will the lawyers have left to go after now? If they can't go after the deep-pockets of the business owners, who will they have left worth suing.

Don't worry, the RIAA/MPAA will be happy to employ them.

does this mean file shareing is now legalized?

This will be interesting...

I doubt it, but maybe now the "host" will not be in trouble for allowing it...

Tomm Cruiz is a homo.

Now Jack does not have to post the grid girls ONLY on Gruppe B....hey, why did he think of US?

That's a fact, and as such, does not fall under the realm of 'libel' or 'slander.'

+1. Someday he will do a "Rock Hudson" and the world will know. Guess everyone already knows that Hilary aint sleeping with Bill for a likewise reason?

Dear Moses, you sound surprised ! ?? :D

Now, were is that bikini thread again..

I wouldn't be cheering this decision too loudly.

This case really doesn't sound like it is any victory for "free speech" -- from the details I've read about it, it sounds more like a case that will allow the internet to become a cesspool of defamation, with the victims of this defamation having little recourse in protecting themselves against the spread of information that damages their good name.

This is a case about a woman (who actually runs a news group herself) who posted defamatory content about a doctor on two other sites she did not run. She/her attorneys used "unclear" wording in the law to argue that the law (The Communications Decency Act of 1996) was intended to protect not just forum owners (like you Wayne), but to protect the posters too. The court decided that the law "applies to 'users' of interactive computer services as well as 'providers.'"

If you have a good reputation and don't mind that any jerk with a computer and internet connection will be able to post any lie he wanted to about you online, and to be completely protected from any defamation lawsuit by you, then you will applaud this California court decision.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122953.PDF