There is a court case that is causing quite a stir. I've attached the headline, excerpts, and link below.

What's your thoughts on this?

Cheerleader lawsuit could quiet Internet: Web giants raise voices against defamation case

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2013 ... z2n0TYGXb7

"The case centers on the federal Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996 to help foster growth and free speech on the Internet by providing immunity from liability to websites for content posted by their users. The law also was designed to encourage websites to self-police offensive material." (The Detroit News)

"In December 2012, former Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones, 28, also a former high school teacher in northern Kentucky, sued Richie over posts concerning the sexual history of her and her ex-husband. Jones said the posts were untrue and caused her severe mental anguish and embarrassment.

Richie said that the posts were submitted to him anonymously and that it was not up to him to judge their accuracy. He simply posted them and added a comment about high school teachers and sex.

In July, after federal Judge William Bertelsman allowed the lawsuit to proceed, jurors found that the posts about Jones were substantially false and Richie had acted with malice or reckless disregard by publishing them, and they awarded Jones $338,000." (The Detroit News)

In my opinion, it should come down to the user. It really is too difficult to control content these days and penalising websites for the actions of their users should not be the way to go.

Wait a second.

The site in question (thdirty.com) is specifically intended to work as a gossip machine based around sensationalist sexy pics. So in this case I think it's fair to say that the guy who made the website is responsible, since he's encouraging people to post stuff in the context of "finding the dirt" on people, without inquiring into whether the supposed evidence being submitted is real or not... That sort of mission statement should imply that any dirt "found" be evaluated before being published...

I have to say I agree with the court ruling here.