CDA protects against liability

Another case where the CDA protected against liability.  Remailer ops
should look into this.

http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/7361.html:

A San Francisco judge has ruled that a lawsuit that
sought to force an Internet service provider to silence a Usenet
participant is barred by the federal Communications Decency Act. 

At issue was a claim by San Francisco Satanists Michael and Lilith
Aquino that San Diego-based ElectriCiti Inc. "breached its duty to the
[plaintiffs] and to other Internet users" by failing to take action against
an anonymous Usenet poster. 

The newsgroup participant allegedly harassed Michael Aquino, a
former US Army lieutenant colonel and the leader of the Temple of
Set, and his wife, Lilith. The claimed harassment took the form of
messages referring to the Aquinos' involvement in a ritual child-abuse
investigation in San Francisco in the 1980s. The couple was never
charged with any wrongdoing. 

Superior Court judge David Garcia accepted ElectriCiti's contention
that the lawsuit violated a little-discussed and still-in-force CDA
provision that exempts ISPs from liability for content transmitted on
their networks. The law states 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." 

The decision is one of three such cases nationwide that have been thrown
out because they attempted to hold ISPs responsible for subscribers'
speech, said ElectriCiti's attorney, Roger Myers.

Remember that the CDA "protects against liability" since the online
services cut a deal during the legislative process.

In other words AOL & co lobbied to have provisions inserted to get them off
the hook, even though individual users would still be screwed when the act
became law.

Another case of corporations selling out civil liberties.

-Declan


At 13:46 -0400 10/2/97, Anonymous wrote:
>Another case where the CDA protected against liability.  Remailer ops
>should look into this.
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/7361.html:

On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> At 13:46 -0400 10/2/97, Anonymous wrote:
> >Another case where the CDA protected against liability.  Remailer ops
> >should look into this.
> >
> >http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/7361.html:

This remailer-op, while not previously aware of the case, is well-aware of
that provision of the CDA, but has not yet had the need or opportunity to
use it as a legal defense. The reference is Public Law 104-104, Title V,
Subtitle A, Sec. 502 as it amends (47 U.S.C. 223). The text of this law is
available on-line at:

        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.652.ENR:

My interpretation of this is: Anonymous remailers are internet service
providers.

--
For information on this anonymous remailing system, send the subject
"remailer-help" to <remailer@anon.efga.org> or visit our web pages at
http://anon.efga.org/anon/. To contact the operator directly, send mail
to <admin@anon.efga.org>. For general information and discussion about
anonymous remailers, send a message with "subscribe" in the body to
<remailer-politics-request@server1.efga.org>.

There have been a bunch of other cases involving the deal-cutting portion
of the CDA. I believe the Drudge lawsuit complaint refers to them. If not,
AOL's response to the complaint certainly will.

-Declan


On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Georgia Cracker Remailer Administrator wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > At 13:46 -0400 10/2/97, Anonymous wrote:
> > >Another case where the CDA protected against liability.  Remailer ops
> > >should look into this.
> > >
> > >http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/7361.html:
> 
> This remailer-op, while not previously aware of the case, is well-aware of
> that provision of the CDA, but has not yet had the need or opportunity to
> use it as a legal defense. The reference is Public Law 104-104, Title V,
> Subtitle A, Sec. 502 as it amends (47 U.S.C. 223). The text of this law is
> available on-line at:
> 
>         http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.652.ENR:
> 
> My interpretation of this is: Anonymous remailers are internet service
> providers.
> 
> --
> For information on this anonymous remailing system, send the subject
> "remailer-help" to <remailer@anon.efga.org> or visit our web pages at
> http://anon.efga.org/anon/. To contact the operator directly, send mail
> to <admin@anon.efga.org>. For general information and discussion about
> anonymous remailers, send a message with "subscribe" in the body to
> <remailer-politics-request@server1.efga.org>.
> 
> 
>

Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:

> 
> Remember that the CDA "protects against liability" since the online
> services cut a deal during the legislative process.
> 
> In other words AOL & co lobbied to have provisions inserted to get them off
> the hook, even though individual users would still be screwed when the act
> became law.
> 
> Another case of corporations selling out civil liberties.

Remind me how some crypto-peddlers endorse bills that would criminalize
domestic crypto use in exchange for their being able to export their
(weak) systems.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps