http://www.yalelawtech.org/free-speech-online/whos-responsible-for-harassment/ CPSC 183, 184, 185 at Yale University Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:49:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.yalelawtech.org/free-speech-online/whos-responsible-for-harassment/comment-page-1/#comment-915 Matthew C Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:26:41 +0000 http://www.yalelawtech.org/?p=1076#comment-915 The way the laws are structured seems silly to me. If knowledge of harassment removes the CDA safe harbor, companies seem more likely to take the most hands-off route possible. compounding the problem, the volume on these websites is way too large to monitor effectively. It's just encouraging companies not to take any subjective action which will only serve to harm victims of harrassment even more. I would think slightly flawed enforcement is better than nothing at all. The way the laws are structured seems silly to me. If knowledge of harassment removes the CDA safe harbor, companies seem more likely to take the most hands-off route possible. compounding the problem, the volume on these websites is way too large to monitor effectively. It’s just encouraging companies not to take any subjective action which will only serve to harm victims of harrassment even more. I would think slightly flawed enforcement is better than nothing at all.

]]> http://www.yalelawtech.org/free-speech-online/whos-responsible-for-harassment/comment-page-1/#comment-801 Logan M Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:47:41 +0000 http://www.yalelawtech.org/?p=1076#comment-801 You're right that this is interesting, but I disagree with Dozier above, if not in the content of the specific wording in the CDA, then in the writing of the law. It seems to me that websites like Twitter, Facebook, and Google should have the same protections in place in regards to harassment as they do for copyright infringement. In that case, this was not a "subjective perspective" that led to the editing of the page, but a specific grievance addressed after a report was filed. This fits in line with the thinking in DMCA 512c. I understand that harassment is not copyright, but why are there different standards governing two illegal acts perpetrated by users? You’re right that this is interesting, but I disagree with Dozier above, if not in the content of the specific wording in the CDA, then in the writing of the law. It seems to me that websites like Twitter, Facebook, and Google should have the same protections in place in regards to harassment as they do for copyright infringement. In that case, this was not a “subjective perspective” that led to the editing of the page, but a specific grievance addressed after a report was filed. This fits in line with the thinking in DMCA 512c. I understand that harassment is not copyright, but why are there different standards governing two illegal acts perpetrated by users?

]]>