Posts Tagged ‘Internet service provider’

Catherine R. Gellis, “2012 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content”

February 4, 2013

 Catherine R. Gellis (Digital Age Defense) has published “2012 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content“, Business Lawyer, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2012 which contains a summary of key cases regarding 47 U.S.C. Section 230 and 17 U.S.C. Section 512.

Supreme Court of Canada: ISP’s not subject to Federal Broadcasting Act

February 9, 2012
Current CRTC insignia

Image via Wikipedia

In Reference re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4, the Supreme Court of Canada today affirmed the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that retail Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) do not carry on, in whole or in part, “broadcasting undertakings” subject to the Broadcasting Act when, in their role as ISPs, they provide access through the Internet to “broadcasting” requested by end‑users. (more…)

Why Having Blogger and WordPress Police the Internet Is A Bad Idea

November 30, 2011
US Federal Protective Service Police officer w...

Image via Wikipedia

Over at Inforrm’s Blog, Gervase de Wilde comments on the recent UK High Court decision of HHJ Parkes QC in Davison v Habeeb ([2011] EWHC 3031 (QB)) dated 25 November 2011 [“Davison”] involving online intermediary liability and jurisdictional issues in UK defamation actions.

In this post, I will briefly address the broader implications of online regulation and intermediary liability.  (more…)

Felix T. Wu on “Collateral Censorship and the Limits of Intermediary Immunity”

November 9, 2011

Felix T. Wu (Yeshiva University – Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law) has posted “Collateral Censorship and the Limits of Intermediary Immunity”, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 87, p. 101, 2011/Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper. Here is the abstract:

The law often limits the liability of an intermediary for the speech it carries. And rightly so, because imposing liability on intermediaries can induce them to filter out questionable content and this “collateral censorship” risks suppressing much lawful, even highly beneficial, speech. The “collateral censorship” rationale has its limits, though, and correspondingly, so should the applicability of intermediary immunity. The worry with collateral censorship is not just that intermediaries censor, but that they censor more than an original speaker would in the face of potential liability. Increased censorship, in turn, is the product of applying liability targeted at original speakers to entities whose interests diverge from original speakers. Where the “intermediary” has the interests of an original speaker, and so should be regarded as one, or where the form of liability already takes into account the intermediary’s interests, collateral censorship is not the problem, and immunity is not the right response. This understanding should, in particular, inform the interpretation of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a federal statute that broadly immunizes Internet intermediaries from speech torts and many other forms of liability. In cases involving the republication of e-mails, questionnaires, member screening, and contract claims, among others, courts have begun to explore the limits of this immunity, but have done so haphazardly and inconsistently, having largely lost sight of the underlying rationale for immunity. Focusing on the conditions that generate problematic collateral censorship provides a principled basis upon which to define the limits of intermediary immunity generally, and section 230 in particular.

A copy of the article may be downloaded from SSRN here.

Related articles

The Impending Death of Internet Freedom and Personal Privacy: Hallowe’en Edition

October 31, 2011

Image by wwarby via Flickr

Just in time for Hallowe’en, here are some scary tales about the impending death of internet freedom and personal privacy: (more…)

%d bloggers like this: