Liability Index
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
|
|

Liability Issues (part 3)
Problems of Applying Traditional Definitions
Although these definitions can be and have been applied to sysops in Internet defamation cases, some problems do arise with such categorization. For instance, when Prodigy was deemed in court to be a publisher, many were concerned that penalizing a service for attempting to maintain control of its bulletin boards could discourage any attempts at control whatsoever. Not only could this conceivably make it easier for defamers to spread on-line, it also makes it more difficult for a service to forbid flaming or, like Prodigy, provide a "family-friendly" forum for communication, or even to focus that forum on discussion of a specific topic, as many bulletin boards do. Further, laws that hold sysops liable for their content can, by making the sysop's position a hazardous one, discourage people and organizations from taking on this role, therefore reducing the usefulness of the Internet as a forum for communication among all users. There are some who will argue that this ultimately results in an unnecessary restriction on free communication, and that sysops should therefore not be held liable for defamation or other violations on their services under any circumstances. Others, of course, argue that defamation is a serious enough problem, especially on a forum like the Internet where false information is so easily spread, that all possible efforts should be made to discourage it, and this extends to making sysops responsible for the material they make available. The issue is new enough that neither courts nor legislation have yet rendered definitive verdicts on these questions; only time will tell how they are ultimately answered.
Go to top of page
|