QUOTE(One @ Wed 13th August 2008, 9:18pm)
I don't think Wikipedia will actually do it. They have too much of a halo such that even totally unwarranted defamation can be written off in the public eye. I suspect any traction on CDA will arise from the horrifying irresponsibility of
other sites.
I put my faith in something like
Jane Doe v. Friendfinder. The facts in that case are the kind of thing that would turn the public against CDA immunity if it applied. Someone with an apparent grudge made an account under an assumed identity to request embarrassing sexual acts from people on Adult Friendfinder. I think it's telling that the online freedom crowd thinks this ruling terrible (quoted in the linked article). Amoral bastards. I just looked this case up. There's been no action since the motion to reconsider was denied, but their discovery plan doesn't call for them to finish their depositions until the end of the year. Trial by this plan would be May 2009 (assuming they're not now deep in settlement negotiations). Maybe an appeal will come after that. The slim chance of a First Circuit precedent in 2010 is not much to look forward to, but it'd be nice.
Using the Lanham Act (trademark) and state publicity rights to get around the CDA is a pretty clever move on this judge's part--intellectual property doesn't apply to Sec. 230. At least this way, websites cannot allow others to pretend to be you on their site.
On the other hand, this might actually make it worse. The easiest way out of this liability is to force all contributers to be pseudonymous. On the other hand, it would take at least some supervision to do that, and it would be a good thing, I think.
The
Roommates case, which
was Ninth Circuit, is interesting, but the Federal civil rights exception is nothing to get too excited about. I think it's great that the CDA didn't roll back civil rights acts online, but that's a very small facet of the problem.
My point is that Wikipedia is so well regarded, I think it's up to other reckless sites to erode CDA immunity. I can't imagine that congress would ever roll it back even a little--not with Google, Facebook, Fox, and everyone online against it.
I think it play out something like this: WP will for sometime continue to prevail on Sec 230 issues in trial courts. The parties adverse to WP will not bring appeals; Cases involving other websites will continue to chip away at Sec. 230 immunity, building on
Roommates content shaping reasoning; Eventually, after the law develops, WP will lose a Sec 230 argument in a trial court; WP, given the extensive backing of EFF, will almost certainly raise to the bait and appeal. Then it is possible that we get a direct look at WP and 230 immunity.
Of course it possible to play out with a whimper, the law developing in a direction so limiting Sec. 230 immunity that WP comes to rely on some risk management strategy other than immunity without a direct decision from any appeals court.
Ninth Circuit? They were not legalizing drug use for mantra chanters. They were viewing narrowly an immunity that lets people off the hook for their irresponsible behavior. I don't think that looks much like wacky California arugula law.