Pollyellon banned me

[Slaky]

Kurt, I know this will awaken the screaming rage in you, but the fatal flaw in your entire rant is the fact that YOU come HERE.  If we were all over on Goat Riders saying passive-aggressive shit about how bad a writer you are and how stupid, nerdy, and unfunny your commenters are, certainly someone would ask why the hell we go to the site.  Since you're here doing the same thing, it prompted the question.  If you find most of this place unpleasant and assume that no one likes you, why not just go somewhere else?  Or- you know- try to be a bit more likable?  No, forget that.  Just try to be less unlikable.  TDubbs aside, I don't think anyone goes out of their way to dislike you, but you sure don't make it easy when you pop off like this.

This is a forum full of obnoxious, arrogant, unapologetic assholes. 

Well, he's not wrong. That's why I like it here.

[Canadouche]

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm going to get sued for?  For correctly pointing out that Al is selling a $22 t-shirt and giving $1.50 to charity?  His own lemmings figured it out and started badgering him about it.

I don't get it.  Somebody photoshop it for me.

The way it was explained to me, you are the one who's "hosting" this site.  Unless Desipio is an entity separate of Andy Dolan (ask Byron what I'm talking about) then you can be deemed culpable for what anybody says here.  If TDubbs posts animal porn, you get in trouble for it.  If somebody acts in a way that can be deemed harrassment, or libelous, by allowing it to happen in your capacity as a moderator, then you can be held responsible.

Your dozen-or-so regulars have demonstrated a blind ignorance toward the damage that their words can do.  Anybody, from Al Yellon, to CubbieJulie, to the Rally Carp, can drop a lawsuit on you at a moment's notice.  

I personally have no interest in doing that because -- I know, you don't believe it -- I don't care.  But in all seriousness, Andy, with no maliciousness intended, if you haven't turned Desipio into an LLC, you should consier it.  Particularly since the content here can be somewhat volatile.  

[Yeti]

I like penises in my butt.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm going to get sued for?  For correctly pointing out that Al is selling a $22 t-shirt and giving $1.50 to charity?  His own lemmings figured it out and started badgering him about it.

I don't get it.  Somebody photoshop it for me.

The way it was explained to me, you are the one who's "hosting" this site.  Unless Desipio is an entity separate of Andy Dolan (ask Byron what I'm talking about) then you can be deemed culpable for what anybody says here.  If TDubbs posts animal porn, you get in trouble for it.  If somebody acts in a way that can be deemed harrassment, or libelous, by allowing it to happen in your capacity as a moderator, then you can be held responsible.

Your dozen-or-so regulars have demonstrated a blind ignorance toward the damage that their words can do.  Anybody, from Al Yellon, to CubbieJulie, to the Rally Carp, can drop a lawsuit on you at a moment's notice.  

I personally have no interest in doing that because -- I know, you don't believe it -- I don't care.  But in all seriousness, Andy, with no maliciousness intended, if you haven't turned Desipio into an LLC, you should consier it.  Particularly since the content here can be somewhat volatile.  

Did you go to Hollywood Upstairs Law College, too?

[Richard Chuggar]

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm going to get sued for?  For correctly pointing out that Al is selling a $22 t-shirt and giving $1.50 to charity?  His own lemmings figured it out and started badgering him about it.

I don't get it.  Somebody photoshop it for me.

The way it was explained to me, you are the one who's "hosting" this site.  Unless Desipio is an entity separate of Andy Dolan (ask Byron what I'm talking about) then you can be deemed culpable for what anybody says here.  If TDubbs posts animal porn, you get in trouble for it.  If somebody acts in a way that can be deemed harrassment, or libelous, by allowing it to happen in your capacity as a moderator, then you can be held responsible.

Your dozen-or-so regulars have demonstrated a blind ignorance toward the damage that their words can do.  Anybody, from Al Yellon, to CubbieJulie, to the Rally Carp, can drop a lawsuit on you at a moment's notice.  

I personally have no interest in doing that because -- I know, you don't believe it -- I don't care.  But in all seriousness, Andy, with no maliciousness intended, if you haven't turned Desipio into an LLC, you should consier it.  Particularly since the content here can be somewhat volatile.  

Does Andy get in trouble with your e-police b/c you're a pedophile and you post here?

[Brownie]

Let's consult with the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and what they have to say about defamation...

What if I republish another person's statement? (i.e. someone comments on your posts)
Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker—if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation. Recognizing the difficulty this would pose in the online world, Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet "intermediaries" who provide or republish speech by others. See the Section 230 FAQ for more.

The vast weight of authority has held that Section 230 precludes liability for an intermediary's distribution of defamation. While one California court had held that the federal law does not apply to an online distributor's liability in a defamation case, the case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, was overturned by the California Supreme Court (EFF filed an amicus brief in this case)

What are some examples of libelous and non-libelous statements?
The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):

   * Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
   * Calling an attorney a "crook"
   * Describing a woman as a call girl
   * Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
   * Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son

Not-libelous:

   * Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context)
   * Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank"
   * Calling someone a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch"
   * Changing product code name from "Carl Sagan" to "Butt Head Astronomer"

Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact.

How do courts look at the context of a statement?
For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience.

Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo "Evel Knievel proves you're never too old to be a pimp," since it was (in context) "not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment." However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert "our dad's a pimp" or to accuse your dad of "dabbling in the pimptorial arts." (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense).

[Brownie]

More, on Section 230:

How does Section 230 apply to bloggers?
Bloggers can be both a provider and a user of interactive computer services. Bloggers are users when they create and edit blogs through a service provider, and they are providers to the extent that they allow third parties to add comments or other material to their blogs.

Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."

So if you are actively going out and gathering data on your own, then republishing it on your blog, we cannot guarantee that Section 230 would shield you from liability. But we believe that Section 230 should cover information a blogger has selected from other blogs or elsewhere on the Internet, since the originator provided the information for publication to the world. However, no court has ruled on this.

Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content?
Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficiently contributed to the content to take it as your own. Likewise, if you link to an article, but provide a defamatory comment with the link, you may not qualify for the immunity.

The courts have not clarified the line between acceptable editing and the point at which you become the "information content provider." To the extent that your edits or comment change the meaning of the information, and the new meaning is defamatory, you may lose the protection of Section 230.

Is Section 230 limited to defamation?
No. It has been used to protect intermediaries against claims of negligent misrepresentation, interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, intentional nuisance, violations of federal civil rights, and emotional distress. It protected against a state cause of action for violating a statute that forbids dealers in autographed sports items from misrepresenting those items as authentically autographed. It extends to unfair competition laws. It protected a library from being held liable for misuse of public funds, nuisance, and premises liability for providing computers allowing access to pornography.

Do blog or online forum operators have a legal obligation to post acceptable use guidelines for commenters?
No. Courts have held that Section 230 allows, but does not require, hosts to establish (and implement) standards of acceptable use without risking liability for doing so. But posting guidelines is still a good idea, since people will often appreciate some guidance of what is or is not acceptable.

Are blog or online forum operators legally obliged to hold to their policies?
Probably not. Most acceptable use policies give the host wide latitude over what editorial actions they take and are not presented in the form of a binding contract.

Can my commenters sue me for editing or deleting their comments on my blog?
Generally no, if you are not the government. Section 230 protect a blog host from liability for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." This would include editing or deleting posts you consider objectionable, even if those posts would be protected by the First Amendment against government censorship.

Sweet, I can edit the comments on my blog to change the meaning and make commenters I don't like seem like crazed defamers.
Not so fast. As noted above, Section 230 protects actions taken in good faith, and you may be liable for new information you create. The ability to edit comments is strongly protected, but you should not abuse that power.

In short, whatever we say or do holds Andy harmless.

[Powdered Toast Man]

I like penises in my butt.

I too like penises in my butt.

[Yeti]

I like penises in my butt.

I too like penises in my butt.

Shall we?

[Brownie]

That EFF site would be valuable to you, Kurt. If you make money off your blog, you probably should investigate joining the local chapter of Society for Professional Journalists, as you would then have access to their lawyers should you face a nuisance suit.

Then again, I'm not sure if "free speech" is as protected in Canada as it is here.

[Wheezer]

I like penises in my butt.

I too like penises in my butt.

I've been thinking about corncobs, but only for relief of local discomfort.

[Canadouche]

I like penises in my butt.

I too like penises in my butt.

I've been thinking about corncobs, but only for relief of local discomfort.

I'm a big fan of the anal pacifier, mostly because it sounds kind of cool.

[Oleg]

I like penises in my butt.

I too like penises in my butt.

I've been thinking about corncobs, but only for relief of local discomfort.

I'm a big fan of the anal pacifier, mostly because it sounds kind of cool.

BOOM...law suit!

[Bort]

I like penises in my butt.

I too like penises in my butt.

I've been thinking about corncobs, but only for relief of local discomfort.

I'm a big fan of the anal pacifier, mostly because it sounds kind of cool.

BOOM...law suit!

BOOM...counter suit!

[Oleg]

I like penises in my butt.

I too like penises in my butt.

I've been thinking about corncobs, but only for relief of local discomfort.

I'm a big fan of the anal pacifier, mostly because it sounds kind of cool.

BOOM...law suit!

BOOM...counter suit!

Why do you always have to one up me?