IP: ISP not liable for customer's messages

From: "Peter J. Celano" <celano@ic.net>
Subject: IP: ISP not liable for customer's messages
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:25:31 -0400
To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com

INTERNET PROVIDER NOT LIABLE FOR MESSAGES OF ITS CUSTOMERS

An appeals court in Florida has ruled against a woman who sued 
America Online because one of its customers, a convicted sex 
offender, used an AOL chat group to try to sell the woman's 
11-year-old son a pornographic video. The court said that federal law 
protects online services from being held liable for the messages 
transmitted by their members sell the videotape of the boy. The 
defeated lawsuit, which is being appealed to the Supreme Court, tried 
to characterize America Online as "a home shopping network for 
pedophiles and child pornographers."  (AP/Washington Post 15 Oct 98)
--
Peter J. Celano    petec@iname.com
pgp key on request
<http://ic.net/~celano>   member SPECLUSA    < ><
Ready to DO something?  Try <http://ic.net/~celano/ip/>
Always remember - LIPS SINK SHIPS!!!




**********************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
     majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com
with the message:
     (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address
**********************************************
www.telepath.com/believer
**********************************************

> An appeals court in Florida has ruled against a woman who sued 
> America Online because one of its customers, a convicted sex 
> offender, used an AOL chat group to try to sell the woman's 
> 11-year-old son a pornographic video. The court said that federal law 
> protects online services from being held liable for the messages 
> transmitted by their members sell the videotape of the boy. The 
> defeated lawsuit, which is being appealed to the Supreme Court, tried 
> to characterize America Online as "a home shopping network for 
> pedophiles and child pornographers."  (AP/Washington Post 15 Oct 98)

As I recall, the individual was trying to sell a pornographic video
featuring the woman's 11 year old son, which is another thing entirely.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Eric Cordian wrote:

> 
> > An appeals court in Florida has ruled against a woman who sued 
> > America Online because one of its customers, a convicted sex 
> > offender, used an AOL chat group to try to sell the woman's 
> > 11-year-old son a pornographic video. The court said that federal law 
> > protects online services from being held liable for the messages 
> > transmitted by their members sell the videotape of the boy. The 
> > defeated lawsuit, which is being appealed to the Supreme Court, tried 
> > to characterize America Online as "a home shopping network for 
> > pedophiles and child pornographers."  (AP/Washington Post 15 Oct 98)
> 
> As I recall, the individual was trying to sell a pornographic video
> featuring the woman's 11 year old son, which is another thing entirely.
> 

Not really. If the service providor is to be held accountable for what 
its members post/say/etc., they would have to monitor *all* traffic in 
order to police their members. In addition, even if the providor *were* 
monitoring, they can only be reactive - do you expect them to monitor and 
censor all traffic before releasing it?

Looks like an attempt to bring in a "deep pockets" defendant.

-r.w.

Mr. Wombat writes:

> > As I recall, the individual was trying to sell a pornographic video
> > featuring the woman's 11 year old son, which is another thing entirely.

> Not really. If the service providor is to be held accountable for what 
> its members post/say/etc., they would have to monitor *all* traffic in 
> order to police their members. In addition, even if the providor *were* 
> monitoring, they can only be reactive - do you expect them to monitor and 
> censor all traffic before releasing it?

I was merely correcting a factual error in the prior post. 

Clearly, a parent is likely to feel more outrage towards AOL if
pornographic videos of their 11 year old son are being openly sold online
by the child's victimizer, than if some random person tries to sell said
11 year old a piece of mainstream erotica. 

Pointing out why this parent is so bent out of shape over this is not the
moral equivalent of suggesting that servuce providers should be held
accountable for content they do not originate, which I do not support. 

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"