Are Citizen Journalism Sites Responsible For User Content?

Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com

In November last year a citizen journalism site run out of Brattleboro, New Hampshire was sued over comments that were posted that were deemed potentially defamatory.

The woman who felt she was attacked in the comments sued the person that made the comment as well as Chris Grotke and Lise LePage, co-owners of the citizen journalism site iBrattleboro.com her lawyer stated that iBrattleboro.com should be liable because they did not remove the comment.

The site was clearly covered by section 230 of the CDA (Communications Decency Act) which states that website operators are not required remove user-submitted material even if they have been notified that the information is defamatory.

The attorney (you have to love attorneys right?) handling the suit did not agree that the site was protected, stating:

"I think their defense will be that they don't read prior to publishing, but I'm not sure that will be enough to avoid some degree of liability."

Apparently the attorney didn't do his homework and look at the multitude of previous cases of this type that were thrown out of court, he also hadn't read the law very closely, which clearly states that

"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."

The judge dismissed the case against the citizen journalism site stating:

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that iBrattleboro is an interactive computer service as defined by the CDA. . . . The gravamen of Plaintiff's complaint is that Defendant Dunn posted statements of his own making on the iBrattleboro website. Therefore, the Court also finds that Defendant Dunn, as alleged, is an "information content provider" because he is a "person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service." . . . Because Plaintiff herein seeks to impose liability for defamation on Defendants for publishing information on their site admittedly provided by Defendant Dunn, the Court concludes that Defendants are immune and the claim barred under the CDA.

Had this case gone the other direction it could have been bad news for Citizen Journalism sites worldwide (including DJ) that rely on user-generated content to function. Can you imagine a world where site owners are sued over comment content? I mean... hello... Digg?