![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The case of "John Doe v. SexSearch.com" has rolled back
"So Doe decided to sue SexSearch for a variety of contractual transgressions, ultimately boiling down to him blaming the website for failing to verify the ages of its members.
SexSearch defended itself on grounds of Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act. The legislation states "[n]o 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." US courts have taken it to mean that websites can't be held responsible for unmoderated comments and profiles posted by its users – which is a big reason why things like Facebook and YouTube's comments section are still around, though there are few more wretched hives of scum and villainy."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/31/sexsearch_v_johndoe_appeal_dismissed/
SexSearch defended itself on grounds of Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act. The legislation states "[n]o 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." US courts have taken it to mean that websites can't be held responsible for unmoderated comments and profiles posted by its users – which is a big reason why things like Facebook and YouTube's comments section are still around, though there are few more wretched hives of scum and villainy."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/31/sexsearch_v_johndoe_appeal_dismissed/