MySpace decision emperils Web 2.0

By Richard Koman - February 16, 2007

Across the country, lawmakers are targeting crimes against children for special, perhaps unconstitutional, treatment. Bills are being introduced and passed to require released sex offenders to register their emails and IM names - violation would be a felony; to make parole violations into aggravated felonies; and to outfit sex parolees with GPS tracking devices for 24/7 monitoring. An email registration bill has also been introduced in Congress.

Against this backdrop comes a decision by a federal court in Texas that MySpace cannot be sued for negligence by the family of a girl who was sexually assaulted by a man she met through News Corp's social networking service. The reason? The federal Commuunications Decency Act gives "interactive services" immunity from lawsuits based on user postings and content.

Passed in 1996, the CDA was passed to allow Internet businesses to grow without fear of lawsuits. The family says they will bring suit in state court to pursue the issue. But it's likely that the CDA preempts any state law to the contrary.

The world's changed a lot in 10 years and it's a matter of Internet legend that the Net is filled with sex addicts, perverts and kiddie porn. No matter if the number of MySpace-initiated assaults is tiny, the social sense is that kids are at risk through social networking and corporations like News Corp are profiting.

With that backdrop, how long before Congress looks at the CDA and says: The Internet no longer needs the help of the CDA, which is protecting corporations from being held to account when children are harmed: time to repeal?

Republicans can make it an anti-pervert, pro-family initiative. Democrats can make it an pro-little guy, anti-corporation initiative. Bipartisanship never looked better.

But the CDA is crucial to Web 2.0 and the wealth of startups, to MySpace and Facebook and YouTube and really any business with user-generated content (isn't that every tech business, these days?) So, while no one is Congress has yet suggested a repeal, I think the gathering storm against crimes against children puts the CDA in real danger.

Thoughts?


« Sponsorwatch: Cohn & Wolfe leader sponsor of New Rules Communications | Main | 2.16.07: Cleantech investment skyrocketing »


                   

February 16, 2007 | Permalink | Comment | Category: NewsWatch | Subscribe to SVW

Comments (3)

The CDA immunity was only part of the dismissal.

While the plaintiffs alleged MySpace was on notice of several previous sexual assaults perpetuated by MySpace users against minor members and therefore Julie Doe's sexual assault was the foreseeable result of MySpace's negligent failure, the court finally compared MySpace to a phone company that enables communications and allows users to conduct whatever business they choose. The loss of CDA granted immunity shouldn't change that.

And I hope that the public will also agree with another of the court's rulings:

"If anyone had a duty protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."


perhaps the CDA legislation is being confused with the supreme court decision that struck it down?

The CDA *was* an attempt to censor speech on the internet.


http://www.cdt.org/speech/cda/


I haven't read the decision, but the comment that MySpace is like a phone company is surely "dicta," nonbinding language that explains a court's thinking but has no authority.

I don't think that Web 2.0 sites will be accorded common carrier status. I'm not even sure that makes sense. On the phone system, you talk, your speech is transmitted to the recipient in real time. Once transmitted the speech can't be "deleted." Granted, once the girl and the predator were in touch, MySpace was no longer in control of the conversation, but they could have likely filtered the guy out.

On a website, there are words on a computer. If a company can scan for spam before delivering, it can certainly scan for perversion. Even if missed, it can mitigate the damage by deleting his page and blocking his communications once he's flagged.

So it's not quite the phone company. In any case, it's a pretty speculative anchor in the absence of explicit immunity.


Post a comment