🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Barber writes:

> Yeah, the third-party status of Rumorville is what the court in _Cubby_
> seems to hang its hat on to absolve Compuserve of liability.

This can't be correct. The court in Cubby relies on Smith v. California, a
case in which the First Amendment was held to protect a bookstore owner
even though there was no third-party relationship distancing the bookstore
from the book.

No, the discussion of the third-party subcontractor relationship in Cubby
has to go to the fact question of "knew or should of known"--it can't go
to the law question, because there is no legal precedent supporting the
idea that subcontractor relationships shield you from libel liability.

The district court in Cubby cites Smith v. California for a reason--the
protection for booksellers applies to all booksellers, not just those who
have subcontractors. Look it up if you don't believe me.


--Mike