Website Liability Exceptions Explained

Summary

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally protects websites from liability, but there are exceptions. Exemptions include intellectual property claims, federal criminal liability, and electronic privacy communication law violations. For specific case applicability, consultation with a local attorney is advised. Additionally, the reasonable expectation of privacy, negligence of comments, likelihood of success on a libel claim, and whether the anonymous commenter is a public figure can be factors in court decisions regarding the disclosure of an anonymous commenters identity. The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not prohibit using an authorized account on a password-protected website to violate the sites terms of service. Jurisdiction for website transactions is not automatically established just because a static website is accessible. The constitutionality of the Healthy Kids Act under the First Amendment involves balancing public health interests against commercial speech rights.

Full Conversation

Section * of the Communications Decency Act protects websites from liability for all of the following EXCEPT: Users' discriminatory selections from website-provided menus on an housing website Defamatory comments posted by users Damages for a sexual assualt resulting from a couple meeting on a dating website Material posted by users that violates someone's reasonable expectation of privacy
Hello Hollis, Section * of the Communications Decency Act doesn't protect websites from liability for:
- Violations of federal criminal law
- Intellectual property claims
- Electronic privacy communication law violations
- Promotions or assistance in sex trafficking.
For specific case applicability, please consult with a local attorney.
In order for a court to order the disclosure of information that can be used to identify an anonymous commenter online in order to sue that commenter for libel, the plaintiff must show: That the commenter does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy That the comments at issue are negligent Likleihood of success on the libel claim That the anonymous commenter is a public figure
In South Carolina, for a court to order the disclosure of an anonymous commenter's identity for a libel suit, the plaintiff generally must show:
- The anonymous speech is actionable.
- The plaintiff's identity has been kept hidden.
- The balance of the First Amendment protection for anonymous speech and the strength of the case presented by the plaintiff.
- Evidence sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.
Please consult with a local attorney for specifics.
is That the commenter does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy is That the commenter does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy a reason
Yes, the reasonable expectation of privacy of the commenter can be a factor considered by the court in deciding whether to disclose the identity of an anonymous online commenter for a libel suit. However, this varies case by case.
is That the comments at issue are negligent a reason
Yes, the negligence of the comments can be a factor. However, the plaintiff must show that the comments are defamatory or false, causing harm to their reputation. This varies depending on specific case details.
is Likleihood of success on the libel claim a reason
Yes, the likelihood of success on the libel claim can be a significant factor. The court typically requires the plaintiff to show that their claim has merit before allowing an anonymous commenter's identity to be revealed.
is That the anonymous commenter is a public figure a reason
Whether the anonymous commenter is a public figure can be a factor. Public figures generally need to prove actual malice, meaning the defamatory statement was made knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. This can be complex, so consider consulting with a local attorney.
The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits all of the folloiwing EXCEPT: Using an authorized account on a password-protected website to violate the site's terms of service Hacking into a password-protected website Inducing trespassing by placing virtual objects in real physical locations Using a false identity on a website that requires use of real names and identities
The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does NOT prohibit using an authorized account on a password-protected website to violate the site's terms of service. The other actions you listed are generally considered violations under the Act. Please consult with a local attorney for specifics.
Under current U.S. court rules and precedents regarding jurisdiction, a lawsuit involving transactions on a website can likely be held in all of the following locations EXCEPT: Any place that a static website is accessible. A location in which the web site specifically targets customers. The location of the computer server that hosts the web site. The location of a user who interacts with the web site.
Under current U.S. court rules and precedents, a lawsuit involving transactions on a website can likely be held in all of the following locations EXCEPT:
- Any place that a static website is accessible. Jurisdiction isn't automatically established just because a website can be accessed there.
Concerned that a large and growing percentage of American children are obese; that sugary foods and a sedentary lifestyle are significant contributors to the problem; and that advertising increases consumption of sugary foods, Congress passes a law called the Healthy Kids Act to fight the obesity epidemic in American children. The law defines foods with over * grams of sugar per serving as sugary foods, and provides that manufacturers of pre-packaged breakfast cereals may not target advertising of those cereals to children if the product has more than this amount of sugar per serving. A major breakfast cereal maker, Sellogg’s, makes * types of cereal, of which * have more than * grams of sugar per serving. Sellogg’s recently ran an advertisement saying: “Sellogg’s cares about the health of your child. Children should get lots of exercise and eat a healthy breakfast. That healthy breakfast can begin with a bowl of Sellogg’s cereal.” Besides this text, the ad also included the front panels of all * of Cellogg’s cereals. The Federal Trade Commission announces a fine against Sellogg's for violatiing the Healthy Kids Act by publishing the ad. In response, Sellogg's claims that the fine must be vacated because the Healthy Kids Act violates the First Amendment. Is the law constitutional under the First Amendment? A good answer will identify several the arguments for and against the constitutionality of the statute and its application in this case, citing relevant precedents, and reach a clear conclusion.
The constitutionality of the Healthy Kids Act under the First Amendment could be argued as follows:
Pros:
- The law aims to protect public health, specifically children.
- It regulates commercial speech, which doesn't have the same level of protection as other speech.
Cons:
- It may be seen as an overreach, infringing on the freedom of speech.
- It could be argued that the law is too broad and over inclusive.
Relevant precedents: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.
The conclusion will depend upon how the court balances the government's interest against First Amendment rights.