Public Library Sued for NOT Filtering

[Filtering Facts]

James Klock wrote:
>At 08:09 PM 5/31/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Michael Dargan wrote:
>>>Are there any filter vendors which offer to defend libraries from=20
>>>lawsuits based on patrons viewing unsuitable materials which the=20
>>>filter did not catch?
>>There's no need, since the library would be immune from civil liability.
>>[per] 47 U.S.C. ' 230(c)(2) states:
>>
>
>I believe you misread Mr. Dargan's question, or I am misreading your
>excerpt of Code 47.  The section you quoted clearly suggests that those
>information providers that deploy filters cannot be sued simply for the act
>of deploying a filter.  But that has little, if anything, to do with Mr.
>Dargan's question, as I read it.  
>As I understand Mr. Dargan's question, this hypothetical situation may help
>explain it:  The Somewheresville Public Library contracts with Electronic
>Blindfold, Inc to filter their Internet access, specifying that no site
>that might be objectionable to any member of the Somewheresville community
>shall be viewable.  Several months later, with the filters in place, little
>Bobby Who, age 9, happens upon a site on hermaphroditic beastiality,
>complete with MPEG movies, that somehow slipped through the filter.  Being
>a hermaphrodite with a budding interest in livestock, Billy saves as much
>of the stuff as will fit on his disk, and takes them to his cousins' house,
>where they print blown-up pictures of the information Billy downloaded.  
>
>Mr. Dargan's question, as I understand it, is, do any of the various web
>censors insure their customers against civil liability in such an event,
>where a filter was in place, but failed to prevent access to information
>that leads to a law suit against the customer in question?
>
>James
>

It has to do with the fact that a library would almost certainly be immune
from civil liability arising from filter failure, hence the title
"PROTECTION FOR 'GOOD SAMARITAN' BLOCKING".

This portion of the CDA was specifically passed for this purpose, because an
on-line service provider had been found liable because they exercised
control over content.  Congress feared this precedent might discourage
filtering, so they put this Good Sam clause in.  It has since been upheld in
court, too.

*****************************************************************************
David Burt	President, Filtering Facts
Website: 	http://www.filteringfacts.org
E-Mail:  	David_Burt at filteringfacts.org
Phone/Fax:	503 635-7048