🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Godwin writes:  
  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. [etc. . . .]
  
Whatever, Mike. I certainly won't argue with your take on the legal
analytics of the case. Even if subcontractor status in _Cubby_ is a
just factual butressing, that doesn't invalidate the observation that
the third-party status of Rumorville was important to that judge in
that case.

That doesn't mean that because there's no subcontractor in the Prodigy
situation that Prodigy ought to be liable. _Smith_ is good sense
precedent in _Cubby_ and it'll be good sense precedent in many, but not
all, online provider liability cases. All it means is that we may see
a different judicial conclusion on the control question based on the
facts in the Prodigy case, whatever those facts turn out to be.

And I hope we don't. It'd be bad for free speech in this country
if online services are liable for user irresponsibility.

-Steve Barber