

I got sued for $3 Million by a religious cult - lumberjack
http://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/sued-3-million-religious-cult/
This is relevant to any webmaster who keeps a Web2.0 website. Interesting searching the footer I can't spot any legal terms of use?!
======
darklajid
I have serious trouble with any claim crossing (or getting in the general
ballpark of) the 'million $currency' line.

So while the hints and lessons might be worth a read, I'd like to finish with
my general 'This legal system is insane and I cry every time I see one of
these sue-because-it-works-and-grants-you-a-shitload-of-money-for-no-reason
articles'.

3 million. Because of a comment. Even the RIAA just blushed.

~~~
a3camero
That's the headline number from the statement of claim, not how much they're
entitled to. You can write whatever number you want in a statement of claim,
and they did!

------
ilamont
U.S. bloggers: Note that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives
protection from defamation claims associated with anonymous comments. Quoting
from the Electronic Frontier Foundation website (1):

 _...Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by
email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be
considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean
that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in
it..._

The EFF page adds, "[Section 230] does not apply to federal criminal law,
intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law."

The Citizen's Media Law project contains additional information about Section
230 and blogging (2):

 _Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants interactive online
services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity
from tort liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third
party. Relatively few court decisions, however, have analyzed the scope of
this immunity in the context of "mixed content" that is created jointly by the
operator of the interactive service and a third party through significant
editing of content or the shaping of content by submission forms and drop-
downs.

So what are the practical things you can take away from this guide? Here are
five:

1) If you passively host third-party content, you will be fully protected
under Section 230.

2) If you exercise traditional editorial functions over user submitted
content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, you
will not lose your immunity unless your edits materially alter the meaning of
the content.

3) If you pre-screen objectionable content or correct, edit, or remove
content, you will not lose your immunity.

4) If you encourage or pay third-parties to create or submit content, you will
not lose your immunity.

5) If you use drop-down forms or multiple-choice questionnaires, you should be
cautious of allowing users to submit information through these forms that
might be deemed illegal._

Note that there are some exceptions and scenarios where the law is not so
clear. In addition, I have heard an expert in this type of law advise either
taking down offending comments or starting a dialogue with the person
complaining to head off legal disputes. His reasoning: Is it really worth
dealing with the hassle and cost of having to hire a lawyer to bring up
Section 230 in front of a judge in order to get the case dismissed?

Read the EFF and Citizens' Media Law website for more information about
Section 230.

1) <https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230>

2) [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-
publi...](http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-
under-communications-decency-act)

~~~
a3camero
Although helpful for US lawsuits, the article is about Canadian law so none of
this would apply.

~~~
gst
As far as I understand international cases, in most countries they are only
enforcable if the things that you did were also illegal in your home country.
So if it's OK to do this in the us, it doesn't seem to be enforcable here (but
IANAL).

~~~
jeremyjh
No kidding, you aren't a lawyer and this is completely wrong. If you read the
original piece, the case would have gone to Canadian courts. Courts use the
law of the land they are in, they do not make "exceptions" for people who live
in countries with different laws.

~~~
gst
There's a difference between a court delivering a judgement and this judgement
being enforcable. I never said that the case wouldn't go to Canadian courts.
Just because some foreign court says you're doing something wrong doesn't mean
that your home country automatically agrees with that decision. Many countries
(maybe except the UK) won't care that much unless what you did is also illegal
according to their law.

------
lumberjack
tl;dw: They accusers eventually backed down.

This is relevant to any webmaster who maintains a web2.0 website (so basically
every webmaster today). Interestingly enough I still can't find any legal
terms or even copyright on skeptical-science.com which is kind of
disappointing because I wanted to see how well those disclaimers of the type
"All comments, links and content is user generated and owned by the poster. No
legal responsibility..." hold up in court.

~~~
tomkinstinch
Somewhat related for US companies: it's probably a good idea to file a DMCA
safe harbor form if your site has user-generated content[1].

1\. <http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/>

------
sycren
Would a disclaimer that a commenters views are not you own suffice?

------
stefantalpalaru
tl;dr: if you're threatened with a libel suit in the Commonwealth bend over
and take it like a man

~~~
frozenport
My grandfather told me men don't bend over and take it.

