Legal filter

[Jessica Schenk]

There *was* a case against Prodigy (Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy) in which
they were held responsible for "libelous" information posted on one of
their bulletin boards.  Basically, it seems that since they claimed they
were monitoring/filtering the content of those messages, they were
essentially putting themselves in the position of publisher. Sooo, when an
inappropriate message slipped through the cracks, they got themselves into
trouble.  There was a simlilar libel case against Compuserve (Cubby v.
Compuserve) in which they were not held reponsible since they made no
claims of filtering or monitoring content...
Both cases use the library as an example of a "distributor" of information
rather than a publisher (i.e. we do not claim "editorial control"over all
the materials in our collections) Whether this view of libraries will be
held by all courts remains to be seen -- roles certainly have started to
blur as many libraries now *publish* information electronically.  This is
a very simplistic explanation, and I'm sure I've overlooked some important
issues...but bottom line is there seems to be some basis for your city
attorney's opinion.

If you would like to know more, there is a lot of information online
about these two cases:

Stratton Oakmont Decision
http://epic.org/free_speech/stratton_v_prodigy_1995.txt

Cubby v. Compuserve Decision
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cubby_v_compuserve.txt

(both of these are found via EPIC's Free Speech Archive
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/  )

Boardwatch article:
http://www.boardwatch.com/mag/95/aug/bwm35.htm


HTH!

Jessie Schenk / Novi Public Library (MI)
(not a lawyer but married to an acutal member of the MI bar who is happy
to share his opinions ;-)



On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Dianne L Parham wrote:

> We've been given an attorney's opinion that "if a library exercises 
> content control over the information available of the Internet, it may be 
> held liable for the transmission of inaccurate, harmful, or inappropriate 
> materials...the decision to exercise control may bring with it tort 
> liability."  Has anyone out there gotten legal opinion on this 
> technology?  We are waiting for the appellate ruling on the 
> "Communications Decency Act of 1996" which may change our current 
> library's stand.  I understand the ACLU has some lawsuits pending, but I 
> admit I'm not up on where they are at.  Any input on law on filtering 
> technology???  Dianne Parham, San Diego Public Library
> 

******************************************
Jessica T. Schenk / jschenk at tln.lib.mi.us
Novi Public Library
45245 W. Ten Mile Rd.
Novi, MI  48375
(248)349-0720