The downside of owning comments
Jeff Jarvis points out that "taking the pledge" offered by O'Reilly has some interesting risks:
So imagine the challenge to Section 230 . . . . A lawyer says to a blogger in the witness box: ‘You put that badge on your site saying that you are responsible for everything on that site and you do kill comments that violate your code, which assures that no one will be libeled or defamed, and yet you left up this comment (wave printout menacingly) that defamed my good client.’ If I were that attorney, I would say that you waived the protection of Section 230. That would be dumb. And dangerous.
I allow annonymous comments here, and the only real policing I do is to get rid of spam and bad language - some people flame me for the latter, but hey - my site, my rules. I hadn't really considered Jarvis' point, but it looks like the code of conduct movement could end up biting back in ways O'Reilly hasn't considered.
Update: Chris Petrilli adds related thoughts - with some experience from when he worked at an ISP. The TWIL podcast also gave that idea some bounce this week.
Comments
shades of the CDA
[Lex Spoon] April 9, 2007 17:45:19.630
This issue was big when the Communications Decency Act was enacted. While the CDA was in effect, BBS's had to decide whether or not to police their content. If they did no policing at all, then in court they could say they were just a communication mechanism. With just a little bit of policing, though, they could become liable for anything that they failed to remove. Exactly as Jarvis describes.
The CDA thankfully died, but that just means you are not liable for "indecent" posts by people on your board. I would imagine you are still liable about libel, and that you would have a larger risk if you have a history of moderating your board.
and what about caching?
[Troy Brumley] April 9, 2007 17:52:12.503
The first thing that comes my mind about this issue is caching. Google cache, wayback, and I believe some Satellite providers may cache my site at various times. So, even if I've deleted something, it could still be out there.
And if I quote a site, and the site changes ...
Where's the line of reasonableness for these issues? This is part of why I don't like the idea of such codes of conduct. Lawyers and litigation don't seem to go well with reasonable effort.