Juicy Campus: One Down, Too Many More to Go

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Matt says:

    It will take Congress amending section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to expressly provide that websites cannot use its immunity carve-out as a shield unless they self-police content in line with the policy goals of the statute.

  2. Danielle Citron says:

    Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Matt. I agree. (I have an article coming out soon in the BU Law Review entitled Cyber Civil Rights in which I explore that suggestion and others to ensure that website operators exercise reasonable care given the aspirations of CDA, which, as you wisely note, was self-policing; I would love your comments on the piece. And Dan Solove has an interesting comment in yesterday’s Higher Ed article on Juicy Campus’s closing that you might want to check out: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/05/juicy

  3. Matt says:

    Thanks, Prof. Citron. I look forward to reading it. I think the Roommates court’s reasoning was a step in the right direction, but I’m not sure other circuits will sign on and I don’t think its reasoning could be used to deny a site like Juicy Campus section 230 immunity because I don’t believe Juicy Campus “contributes materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct” such that it becomes a co-developer or co-creator of the objectionable content that students posted. I do think that several suits against MySpace pending in various state and federal appellate courts could herald some additional limits on 230’s immunity carve-out, though, but we will have to wait and see.

  4. Tony says:

    Congrats to Reputation Defender for their apparently-effective campus advocacy on this issue.

  5. The US Government is finally coming for people like Ed Magedson of the RipOff Report (www.ripoffreport.com), and all of their posters.

    Plain and simple.