After posting this in a thread of Greg's bashing Digg and non-disclosure of IPs, I happen to find a news story directly related to Section 230, and the whole shebang:

Police director sues for critical blogger



The blog in question: http://mpdenforcer20.blogspot.com

Thoughts on this, and how it relates to the general bile here on WR towards Web 2.0 type ventures, which does include blogs?

At a glance, looks like it's this blog post:

http://mpdenforcer20.blogspot.com/2008/07/...ve-to-hide.html

That really set this all off. A poor woman was allegedly killed by her husband during a fight over text messages she received from an unknown male. Its alleged in the comments that it was apparently this chief of police's number that was texting her, and it's alleged throughout the blog by various "inside sources" from the Memphis PD that someone removed that evidence from her cell phone after the arrests. They also posted anonymously in the comments what looks like very unpleasant records/information about the police chief, like alleged disciplinary records from his police career.

If this information is false, it's I would think defamatory, and he would have grounds to sue. Section 230 should not be a protection here, then.

If it's not false, and it's true (truth is an absolute protection against defamation/libel judgments in all US law) then did these anonymous individuals do a service by leaking this information? The information has apparently been picked up by the local press in Memphis, and allegedly has led to the police chief leaving the country (!!). Should the normal Web 2.0/230 stuff we know be able to protect these leakers?

The blogger should have sent it to wikileaks -- much more de facto protection there: offshore server, offshore entity, etc.

Apparently this Godwin feller isn't actually suing anybody yet, but is trying to subpoena AOL for whatever personal info they have on the blogger's AOL e-mail account, under something called the "Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act":

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/...07act_final.htm

...which is being proposed in multiple states by a group called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and has actually passed in several states, including Tennessee (Godwin's home state) and Virginia (AOL's).

So I wouldn't say this has enough relevance to Section 230 to be of much concern to the WP folks - it's unlikely the e-mail account was used to send "harassing" messages, and the blog itself is on Blogspot, which is now owned and hosted by Google, which of course is pretty much everywhere and far too powerful for the likes of the puny little Memphis Police Department. Besides, I don't believe you have to supply a verifiable identity to start a blog on Blogspot, do you? (I've never tried...)

This is inapposite. Section 230 protects the publisher, not the author.

If it's false, there might be a libel case against the author, but the host remains immune under Section 230. You could always sue the author, but good luck collecting anything from non-millionaires.

It would appear that you can set up an anonymous Blogger/Blogspot account to blog away to your heart's content, but Google reserves the right to snitch on you to the authorities.

Nonetheless, Google sounds just like the Wikimedia Foundation:

...and is no different than any one of 1,000+ random webhosting companies in the United States, or ISPs that provide web hosting space to their clients, like AOL or Comcast for Section 230 protection. Google can also try to snitch out, but all I have to do is clear all cookies from my browser, fire up Tor, and off we go to the races.

Or, you know, I can just order a web hosting account from a Russian web host, and go to town that way.

Wikipedia, the random webhosting company that anyone can edit.

And I think I made my point, that grousing about the entirety of the Internet culture and it's evolved nature since the late 80s is what is happening. Wikipedia is just the biggest target today.