They are suing the forum owner/operator for something posted by a forum member. So roughly equivalent to me saying something here, and Paul Graham getting sued for it.
Also, the actual quote was "This scam product has been discussed here before. Stay away. It's a marketing ploy." Which I guess may be legally actionable, but given their behavior seems like it's quite likely true.
From the article: "Never mind the fact that Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code holds that website owners cannot be held responsible for comments that their users make."
Wouldn't this be somewhat like the DMCA, where the host is only protected if they respond to claims? Or would it take an actual court injunction to order the material to be removed?
The plain language of the provision is starkly unconditional. 47 USC Sec. 230(c)(1) specifies: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. In US and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability, or safe harbour, provisions for online hosts (see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000). As a condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality.[1]
The sweeping exemption in 47 USC 230 doesn't (unlike the DMCA safe harbor) have any notice and takedown provisions attached to it, so your link and text is, while accurate, irrelevant.
