[Air-l] MySpace sued again ...

[Hugemusic]

Thanks, Dan.  That helps a lot.

> The lawsuit is largely BS. MySpace is a media distributor for First
> Amendment purposes, and cannot be required to screen or purge content
> unless they have actual knowledge that the content passing over their
> system.

I gather this is the nub of the issue. In the original case (see 
http://www.barryloewy.com/law-attorney-news-detail.php?Id=7), they claim:

"MySpace.com had full knowledge that sexual predators were contacting young 
children on the website but did nothing to stop it. Additionally, the suit 
alleges that MySpace.com fraudulently represents it has security measures in 
place to protect its young members but, in reality, it does not"

Now there are 5 examples to use - all minors.  This is why I'm concerned 
that regulators will step in and make the standards for "protection" so 
obscenely impossible that not even MySpace will be able to meet them 
satisfactorily ... Apparently, the offender in the first case is also 
considering suing, claiming MySpace allowed the young girl to represent 
herself (fraudulently) as older than she was (see 
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1207043,00.html).

I wonder if there's any significance in the venues: the first case in Texas 
and the other four in California, despite the assaults happening in Ohio, 
South Carolina, New York and Texas ... thoughts??

Cheers,
Hughie


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <burkx006 at umn.edu>
To: <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>; <jstromer at albany.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Air-l] MySpace sued again ...


> On Jan 18 2007, Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
>
>> I can't help but think that My Space, like an ISP or the telephone
>> company, is a neutral carrier of content and therefore not responsible
>> for what happens in that space.
>
> True in general for some activities, but not others. They will be treated
> somewhat differently depending on whether the claim sounds in libel,
> copyright, criminal pornography, or something else. They can be required 
> to
> react to content on the system, but generally cannot be required to police
> content on the system.
>
>> For those of you who are knowledgeable about policy: Why isn't My Space
>> viewed as a common carrier, and hence not responsible for the content
>> that is shown on its pages?
>
> MySpace is not a common carrier, nor are other ISPs/OSPs. They are not
> regulated as a common carrier, and are not required to provide services
> (carriage) to anyone who requests service.
>
>>Or is it, and this whole lawsuit is just, well, B.S.?
>

>
> They are also almost certainly not the proximate (legal) cause of any
> harmful activity that occurs off-line.
>
> That is not the standard outside the U.S., BTW, since no one else has our
> First Amendment jurisprudence.
>
> -- 
> Dan L. Burk
> Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor
> University of Minnesota Law School
> 229 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN  55455
> **********************************
> voice: 612-626-8726
> fax: 612-625-2011
> bits: burkx006 at umn.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: 
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>