I don't know for sure about being responsible for content. It has something to do with whether or not they declare they are a "common carrier" (which is what the internet providers are) or something else...
I would love to know more about it, too, just out of curiosity.
You can't declare yourself a common carrier. The law *defines* certain things (phone companies, the old telegraph and telex companies and some kinds of shipping companies) as being common carriers.
So until and unless Congress passes a law that would make internt companies of some types common carriers, they don't get that sort of legal protection.
I think TV/radio stations are directly responsible because they operate out of closed environments, business buildings with business peoples, and keep direct contact with the content at all times, and it's organized as a professional atmosphere.
Phone and internet companies can't possibly be held to the same standard, because they can't control invidual, personal devices all over the world, nor should they have the right to, in that respect.
I think the line got blurred with LJ when 6A shifted them towards more of a business and less of a free people networking experience. However, that doesn't excuse this tornado of bullshit.
Okay. As I understand it, radio and TV stations are responsible for their content because they are actively deciding what to air and what not to air. Phone companies, however, do not actively decide what phone calls to transmit-and couldn't even if they wanted to, due to the sheer volume of information-and therefore cannot be prosecuted if their service is used to transmit illegal content. This is basically the meaning of the "common carrier" status such businesses are said to have.
I think, though, that the protection given by "common carrier" status only holds because the carrier is assumed to be unaware of the illegal content. If a common carrier becomes aware that its network is being used to carry illegal content-if, for example, it is reported to it by a third party-then I think (not certain, though) that it then becomes obligated to remove that content from its service.
I'm by no means an expert, but I understand there was recently an incident where the administrator of a huge message board was deemed to be accoutable for some of its content, even though there were thousands of users
( ... )
Comments 7
I would love to know more about it, too, just out of curiosity.
Reply
So until and unless Congress passes a law that would make internt companies of some types common carriers, they don't get that sort of legal protection.
Reply
Reply
Phone and internet companies can't possibly be held to the same standard, because they can't control invidual, personal devices all over the world, nor should they have the right to, in that respect.
I think the line got blurred with LJ when 6A shifted them towards more of a business and less of a free people networking experience. However, that doesn't excuse this tornado of bullshit.
Reply
I think, though, that the protection given by "common carrier" status only holds because the carrier is assumed to be unaware of the illegal content. If a common carrier becomes aware that its network is being used to carry illegal content-if, for example, it is reported to it by a third party-then I think (not certain, though) that it then becomes obligated to remove that content from its service.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment