What is Digg?45 Comments
- Nukem945, on 10/12/2007, -0/+46Could we extend this reasoning to the idea that game companies aren't liable for the content that mod makers create?
- itsallgeektome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42Am I the only one who finds it ironic that no one seems to want to comment on this article?
- compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19This seems like a huge win for file sharing forums.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Its a huge win all over.
Blogs, forums, small businesses, and all. I remember many sites dropping forums because they couldn't afford to have someone monitor every comment - liquidoc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15No, that would make what I like to call "sense" and we all know no one in government has any of that. (at least, no one in a position to influence the laws/judiciary system)
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Cool
Now if only the same law was passed for ISP.
Nothing worse than a packet-sniffing-***** of an ISP trying to tell you want you can and can't do. - logic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12How about an *****-sniffing packet?
- MrSketch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"The first amendment is slowly disappearing..."
I believe you mean that it is slowly re-appearing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow. It's nice to know that some old, "we know nothing about technology but feel free to rule on it anyways" judges finally legalized what the average retarded mule already knows.
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8you haven't read any comments on mac- or politics-related articles??
- sshack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6hah. As usual tucker max rules. Read the ruling, The judge had a great time giving the plantiffs lawyer a brutal smackdown.
"Fisted by an angry gorilla" will be found in law textbooks around the us soon. - pr0t3st, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6it'd be nice if this applied outside of the net.
Some kid jumped out of my second story window onto my concrete porch nearly killing himself. I wasn't held liable but I could have been. I am glad the kid didn't die. - FiveFiftyOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6logic: So, is that what the "dirty bit" is for?
- tony23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7By the same reasoning, Pirate Bay shouldn't be held responsible for content placed there by others...
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have a commment...
"Eh Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So that means if I posted somthing on digg that is offensive and rude digg can't be sued?????
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3[sarcasm] i think you're supposed to use the [sarcasm]...[/sarcasm] tags..... [/sarcasm]
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"girl you know it's- girl you know it's- girl you know it's- girl you know it's-.."
yes, that is the sound of fecal matter hitting a fan on max. - kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Damn. I was just about to reveal to the world that John Dvorak was the voice behind Milli Vanilli.
- samdu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well it's about frickin' time!
- smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Forums should only have a moral responsibility, not a legal one, to moderate users.
Great victory! - thetaco82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Tuba, have YOU read the First Amendment? It allows you to say anything you want (except for libel, slander, threats, spreading hysteria, other things that I forgot) without having to worry about federal consequences.
"Congress shall make no law..." That clause has been interpreted to include the whole federal government, not just congress. I don't know if there has been a ruling on whether or not the freedom of press extends to the Internet, but in my opinion, it should.
Also, the Fourteenth Amendment extends your First Amendment protections to the state and local levels as well.
Your freedom of speech, religion, press, and peaceful assembly are completely protected by the Bill of Rights, and the only consequences that you have to worry about are pissing off some bigot. - bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can sue the people making the comments if they're actually libelous; you can't sue the website owner that had nothing to do with writing them.
- spect3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Letting your fans, visitors, customers voice their opinions - regardless how irresponsible, erronous or silly they may be - is vital.
Digg would not be around if that were the case.
However, if I start singing the lyrics to a copyrighted song... we might be experiencing a different story... you know, if I was to belt out a KISS song...
"You tell me that you're leaving,
and I'm trying to understand
I had myself believing I should take it like a
/gets hauled away by the RIAA - alt130, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I am all for free speech but"
How often does a statement beginning this way ever turn out to give *any* regard for free speech?
Yeah yeah yeah, fire in a crowded theater. We know. Calling someone a whore and suggesting they have aids and rape babies isn't fire, and as such the establishment has no requirement to rush over with an extinguisher. This is about libel, not life and death. Track down the person who made the comment and have your way with them, not the webmaster. Let's save the panic for when it's truly needed. - xst4t1kx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's called freedom of speech! Suck it!
- Havs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does this mean that the owners of a forum don't have to remove slanderous statements upon request? I know they're not held liable if the post happens to get made by another person, but what happens if the person being slandered requests the information be removed from the site? Are they then obligated to remove the infraction, or can they leave it up without fear of legal repercussion?
- snapcase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seems to me that this should apply to torrent submissions made by users on a website. As long as the people running the website aren't the ones posting the torrents, then there should be no difference. A post on a forum can include images, so we can assume that the site owners wouldn't be responsible for images submitted by users either. Next step after that is torrents or other files. Speech on the internet is quite different than Speech in person or through print. Data files and such means that ideas are conveyed in different ways, but are still an expression of free speech.
- perral1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yeah, this is one of those few diggs where the generic anti-American-government statements don't work. Sorry.
-Perral1 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does this mean that if we create a forum that is for some thing like.. cars, and then people happen to discuss how to pirate microsoft office, would i be free?
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@slicedoranges - have you even read the first amendment?! It allows you the freedom to say anything you want to, but does not protect you from its consequences...
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sanity at least!
- Sacky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does this apply to sites where users submit there own torrent files and links to potentially illegal files?
- dbt10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think some people are getting this mistaken, basically there was another court case which made it illegal to harrass someone through the internet anonymously. This lawsuit was launched on those grounds by Ant-nee (Sorry im Tucker fan haha) but was errenous in that he wasn't being harrassed or libelled or anything. Basically the judge ruled that Tucker cannot be sued for the comments made on his boards because they a) weren't harrassing anthony and b) Tucker showed prudency by deleting some of the more libellous comments.
The full ruling and Tucker Max's commentary is on his site: www.tuckermax.com. He's a brilliant guy, excellent writer and knows the law because he has a JD (from Duke no less). But be warned, his stories are explicit and he is a dick... so if you're too immature to handle it... don't try. - OmegaNine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is awesome! I hope this doesn't mean they are going to start making people hand over user info though.
- s3r4ph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, I believe they can leave it up without fear of legal repurcussion. Now, they could probably be called upon legally to hand over the libelous user's information, but they themselves are not responsible for the content the user posted, and can never be considered so. Outside of that it's up to their moral judgment as to whether or not to remove such posts.
As a forum administrator I am very happy to see this sort of thing! - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I am all for free speech but if you have never been the victim of online libel you might not quite see the whole story. It's not an easy situation to deal with. It would be nice if all forums could be maintained so that personal witchhunts and vendettas don't happen but that can't always be the case.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/31/business/chinet.php
That article about mob rule on the internet ties in nicely with this. If you think it only happens in China, think again. I don't know the solution. I don't think the website or BBS owner should be responsible. The responsibility should lie with those who try to slander others online. For instance, giving out personal information about others for malicious purposes should be punished. - ddales, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0And no one should be guilty of murder if they were "only holding the victim down as someone else shot them".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"Some kid jumped out of my second story window onto my concrete porch nearly killing himself. I wasn't held liable but I could have been. I am glad the kid didn't die."
Bah, clean out the gene pool, I say. - twollamalove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1asdf
- Godel, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Doubleplusgood newspeak Computermutt.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2***** activist judges (End of sarcasm)
Sorry for the sarcasm note, but some people just don't get it. - manofdestiny, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0@ logic
Now THAT's funny! - TheComputerMutt, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6/mod +1 insightful
- slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3The first amendment is slowly disappearing...
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is