🚀 go-pugleaf

David Smith writes:

> On Fri, 25 Nov 1994, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Oh. It looks like I am not up to date on Prodigy's Moderation Status. I
> > apologize for the out-of-date comment <g>. Isn't the Cubby [?] vs
> > Compuserve Ruling in their favor?
> > 
> 
> This is something that I plan to ask the panel on Saturday, but my 
> initial sense is no, it doesn't.  The facts of the case are substantially 
> different, most notably that Compuserve had a signed contract that stated 
> Rumorville was responsible for the content of the publication.  Prodigy 
> can not claim the same. 
> 
> This contract was what "turned the corner" on Compuserve's liability.  

This is incorrect. The precedent in Smith v. California appies as much to
Prodigy as to CompuServe, regardless of whether there is any contract
between the provider and the forum moderator.

Judge Leisure refers to the contract only because it demonstrates 
that, as a factual matter, CompuServe had no knowledge of the contents of
the forum. But this has nothing to do with the rule of law.

> What I don't myself know, and what I need to ask, is that there may be 
> additional parts of the Cubby ruling that could be beneficial to 
> Prodigy's defense if used, or perhaps stretched to fit.
> 
> But my initial assumption is that it doesn't.

Prodigy's in pretty good shape as far as Cubby goes. But if the case is
taking place in another jurisdiction, Cubby's not binding precedent.


--Mike