In the case of libel, who's responsible?

In the case of libel, who's responsible?
HE SAYS: Author Can schools be held accountable for what students do? Well, to answer this let me ask another question - If someone uses the telephone to harass you, is the telephone company responsible? No, I don't think so. However, if the telephone company is made aware of the situation and they do nothing about it then the telephone company may be partly to blame. I think that the schools role in student web pages will be very similar. Everyone is entitled to free speech. Of course, this also means that individuals must be willing to accept the responsiblity that goes with it. Students need to be held accountable when they have done something wrong. And, of course, schools need to do their best to prevent these situations since it's a part of education. However, this doesn't mean that schools should isolate students from all situations that "may" be dangerous. After watching the news, it appears that just going to school may be dangerous enough. However, that's no reason to stop attending. The Cubby v. Compuserve case will play an important role in this situation. The court found that the ISP cannot be held responsible for content that is posted through its services. Compuserve was treated like a book store rather than a publisher. The court found that they provided services that allowed people to communicate, but that they could not have reasonably been able to control all of its content. As I've stated before, schools need to handle this situation at the core of the problem - students need to learn how to responsibly use free speech. What implications does this present for allowing students to publish web pages? Students hold the primary responsibility for their work. Instead of trying to completely shelter students, schools need to concentrate their efforts on teaching students to use free speech responsibly and to learn the implications of their work. Additional Resources Cubby v Compuserve Court record of the case from Electronic Privacy Information Center. Case that ruled that Compuserve is held to the standard of a library with regard to its content. Blumenthal vs. Drudge Court record of the case from Tech Law Journal. Court case that stated America Online was immune from suits arising from content posted on AOL but was created by other parties. Why there is nothing wrong with the CDA by Ryan J. Bruner. Under the section called Responsibility, the author takes the view that an author needs to take responsibility for their work. However, be very careful when reviewing this document. The overall opinion is not reflective of Freedom Freddy's opinion, however, they do agree on this specific issue. Liability for libel on the Internet: by David A. Potts. Uses the Cubby vs. Compuserve case point out why an author is ultimately responsible for content. Libel Online II by Larry Lessig, David Pose, Eugene Volokh. A lesson presented by the Cyberspace Law Institute and Counsel Connect. Discusses how the Cubby vs. Compuserve case helps establish an author as the responsible party regarding libel issues. INTERNET LIBEL: IS THE PROVIDER RESPONSIBLE? by Mike Godwin. Published in Internet World, Nov./Dec. 1993 Discusses the role of the ISP. Are they a book store owner or a publisher? Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews and the Web for offensive articles, newsgroups, and pages? A question from the Computers and Academic Freedom Project This discussion includes prior restraints and the use of the Cubby v. Compuserve case to point out that liability might be less if material is not screened. Emphasizes that the responsibility should fall on the author.	HOME	SHE SAYS: ISP Not only is the author responsible, but the service provider is also liable because they act as the publisher. Without their ability to make the content public, the problem would not have occurred. In the Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy case, the court found that Prodigy was liable for the content that they did not author. Prodigy was held accountable because they had promised that they would preview all material before it was posted. Schools will need to be careful not to get caught in this same situation. Most schools have already stated to parents that all student work on the Internet will be monitored. This could place schools in the same position as Prodigy. What implications does this present for allowing students to publish web pages? This area presents a major concern for schools. This is the primary reason why I think that students should not be allowed to even publish web pages on a school server. It opens up unnecessary risk to the school district, yet provides only little chance for improving student achievement. Because of the Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy case, schools are placed in a lose-lose situation. Monitoring student work can make schools accountable for their products. Then again, if schools don't monitor student work, the community will be upset that students are unsupervised. How can schools meet their educational objectives in this type of environment? Additional Resources Libel Online III by Larry Lessig, David Pose, Eugene Volokh. A lesson presented by the Cyberspace Law Institute and Counsel Connect. Discusses how the Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy case established that the ISP can be held accountable for content. Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy Court record of the case from Electronic Privacy Information Center. Keeping it Legal: Questions Arising out of Web Site Management by Jamie McKenzie in From Now On, June 1996. Alerts educators to the serious issues that may arise from involving students in the development of the school web site.