Internet Law 2002 (St. John's) > Anonymity and Liability |
|
|
Rotisserie Question
Ken Zeran comes to your office still deeply disturbed by his experiences. "Those AOL messages made my life miserable [you hear "significant emotional distress, injury to reputation, economic damages"]. Isn't there _anything_ I can do? Whom can I sue?" What do you respond under the current law? Should Zeran have a better remedy? If so, what would you change? |
| Sort By: Thread / Author | Expand Rounds: All / 1 / 2 / None | |
While I sympathize with Zeran, he cannot successfully sue AOL because AOL is protected by Section 230, which protects computer service providers from liability for statements made by third party More...
Due to the refusal of the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in Zeran's defamation action, Zeran has been left without compensation for the defamatory statements made about him on the More...
You are absolutely correct in saying that AOL should be subjected to some liability for the distress Zeran was forced to endure during the time after AOL was given notice More...
While I agree that the Zeran holding was unfair, I think it is impractical to hold third parties, such as AOL, accountable for defamation. Section 230 of the Communications Decency More...
The only person that can be sued is the person that originally posted the message on the message board. AOL should be able to track which one of its users More...
Good Points, but if a third party (AOL) losses evidence within there control whereby the plaintiff (Zeran) is no longer able to prove his case against the defendant (the defamer), More...
According to the current laws, Ken Zeran would not have a case against AOL. The only person(s) he may sue would be those who actually posted the defamatory material. Under More...
I agree that little can be done for Ken Zeran with the current state of the law regarding ISPs and their immunity from liability for defamatory speech. I disagree with More...
It would seem that the defendant that he has yet to pursue is the AOL user who posted the messages in the first place. I'm not sure that the best More...
Upon supposing that this speach has come from a third party, this leaves Zeran without authority to hold AOL liable for the defamatory language under section 230. 230 sates " More...
I disagree that by contacting AOL, they would then become a distributor, vulnerable to liability. The Zeran court specifically dealt with notice requirements indicating that they would impose too heavy More...
As to AOL, wouldn't this matter be res judicata?
It's an interesting point about the distinction between a publisher and a distributor. But isn't a distributor less likely to be More...
Since AOL was able to succeed in using the Communications Decency Act ?230 as a defense against Zeran?s claims, the only other alternative would be for Zeran to try suing More...
Under the facts of the Zeran case, the elements of libel appear to be satisfied. There is publication of a statement to a third party of and concerning the plaintiff. More...
I agree. Individuals who make defamatory statements should be held liable for such statements and should not be able to use the internet as a new forum--as a means of More...
Under current law it appears that Ken Zeran does not have an action against AOL. However, Zeran should not be subject to harassment because of libelous and internet postings by More...
According to the cases and section 230 of the code, Zeran's possible outlets for remedy against AOL and any internet provider in general, is severely stiffled by Congress' current system, More...
Congress has a Catch-22 on its hands. By attempting to help Zeran, they worry about undermining their goals of promoting & fostering the growth of the Internet. By immunizing ISP's More...
The immunity given to ISP's by Section 230 of the CDA is a clear policy statement from Congress that when it comes to defamation, they want to encourage and foster More...
According to current law, it appears that Ken Zeran would have no recourse against AOL with respect to any of the COAs alleged. Section 230 states that a provider or More...