Applying only the Restatement (Second) of Torts (excerpted in the text), prior to the passage of Section 230. A reporter, Clark Kent, writes a false and injurious article accusing businessman Lex Luthor of involvement in criminal activity. The Daily Planet newspaper prints the article on its front page. Olsen Newsstands sells the papers to the public. Slow Lane Coffee has several copies set out for its patrons. At common law, which of them are liable to Luthor for defamation? What if Luthor notifies them of the article’s falsity? Do the answers change if the article appears on dailyplanet.com and patrons view it using Slow Lane’s free Wi-Fi?
Upon the passage of Section 230, liability for dailyplanet.com may change if it is considered an interactive computer service which is afforded protection under Sectio 230. dailyplanet.com may be an open forum that anybody can post to. However, if it is a website for a newspaper, and Clark Kent is a news reporter for that newspaper, they would not be afforded protection under Section 230. Additionally, under Section 230, the Slow Lane would not face liability for individual’s accessing the website using their free Wi-Fi.
Leave a Reply