|
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at . Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others: 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. In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity: # The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service." # The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue. # The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue. ==History== Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House of Representatives, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. Unlike the more controversial anti-indecency provisions which were later ruled unconstitutional, this portion of the Act remains in force and allows ISPs and other service providers to restrict customers' actions without fear of being found legally liable for the actions that are allowed. The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in ''Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.'',〔''Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.'', (31063/94, 1995 WL 323710, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 712 ) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).〕 which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In ''Zeran v. America Online, Inc.'', the Court notes that "Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the ''Stratton Oakmont'' decision.〔Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 331 (4th Cir. 1997)〕 Under that court's holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher. Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted § 230's broad immunity "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material." In addition, ''Zeran'' notes "the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is . . . staggering. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|