tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post4223601259965399937..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Eater LA sorry for posting anonymous tip on bar, but can The Must track down tipster?Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-30975392310967216902009-07-03T10:39:00.465-07:002009-07-03T10:39:00.465-07:00thank you so much for answering my question. that ...thank you so much for answering my question. that is great information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-66037933060184554812009-07-02T21:24:08.480-07:002009-07-02T21:24:08.480-07:00@Anonymous 8:12:
I think you are partly right and...@Anonymous 8:12:<br /><br />I think you are partly right and partly wrong.<br /><br />You are definitely correct that if an Eater employee writes something him or herself, then Eater is liable -- no Section 230 immunity.<br /><br />However, in this case, the tipster -- not the Eater employee -- is the "information content provider" under Section 230(c)(1), and therefore Eater isn't liable.<br /><br />A 9th Circuit case called Batzel v. Smith held that a service provider's "choice to publish [an] e-mail (while rejecting other e-mails for inclusion...)" did not remove the service provider's Section 230 immunity.<br /><br />http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2003-06-24-Appeals%20Court%27s%20Opinion%20on%20Batzel%20v.%20Smith.pdfBen Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-477451468178677342009-07-02T20:12:31.307-07:002009-07-02T20:12:31.307-07:00hi. i'm interested in your take on the eater i...hi. i'm interested in your take on the eater issue. your understanding may be better than mine. here's mine:<br />if the post was made by a third-party (i.e., someone who logged on to the site, posted, logged off) eater has absolute protection under section 230. however, i thought eater (as a business entity) could be held responsible for posts its employees made on its site. that would include comments submitted (via e-mail) by a third party, then posted by eater employees. which i thought was the case here. please correct me if i'm wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-27350212843838354652009-07-02T15:17:37.978-07:002009-07-02T15:17:37.978-07:00@Nancy:
Thanks very much. But after a month? Sure...@Nancy:<br /><br />Thanks very much. But after a month? Surely fetid by then...Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-2015453336183351872009-07-02T15:16:06.974-07:002009-07-02T15:16:06.974-07:00Hey, I think Humboldt Fog smells wonderful! The s...Hey, I think Humboldt Fog smells wonderful! The stinkier the better. Regardless, I found your two posts on Eater LA's situation to be fascinating. Thanks for your input!Nancyhttp://www.thewanderkind.comnoreply@blogger.com