03/02/2020 Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited [1999] EWHC QB 244 (26th March, 1999) made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment" "CompuServe's CIS product is in essence an electronic, for profit library that carries a vast number of publications and collects usage and membership fees from its subscribers in return for access to the publications. CompuServe and companies like it are at the forefront of the information industry revolution. High technology has markedly increased the speed with which information is gathered and processed: it is now possible for an individual with a personal computer, modem, and telephone line to have instantaneous access to thousands of news publications from across the world. While CompuServe may decline to carry a given publication altogether, in reality, once it does decide to carry a publication, it will have little or no editorial control over that publication's contents. This is especially so when CompuServe carries the publication as part of a forum that is managed by a company unrelated to CompuServe" "CompuServe has no more editorial control over such a publication than does a public library, book store, or newstand, and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do so. "First Amendment guarantees have long been recognised as protecting distributors or publications....Obviously, the national distributor of hundreds of periodicals has no duty to monitor each issue of every periodical it distributes. Such a rule would be an impermissible burden on the First Amendment"" "Technology is rapidly transforming the information industry. A computerised database is the functional equivalent of a more traditional news vendor, and the inconsistent application of a lower standard of liability to an electronic news distributor such as CompuServe than that which is applied to a public library, book store, or newstand would impose an undue burden on the free flow of information. Given the relevant First Amendment considerations, the appropriate standard of liability to be applied to CompuServe is whether it knew or had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorville statements" 43. Cubby was followed in Stratton Oakmont .v. Progidy [1995] N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229;23 Media L. Rep 1794, where Ain.J. said:"A computerised database is the functional equivalent of a more traditional news vendor, and the inconsistent application of a lower standard of liability to an electronic news distributor such as CompuServe than that which is applied to a public library, book store, or newstand would impose an undue burden [*10] on the free flow of information." "That such control is not complete and is enforced both as early as the notes arrive and as late as a complaint is made, does not minimise or eviscerate the simple fact that PRODIGY has uniquely arrogated to itself the role of determining what is proper for its members to post and read on its bulletin boards. Based on the foregoing, this Court is compelled to conclude that for the purposes of plaintiffs' claims in this action, PRODIGY is a publisher rather than a [*11] distributor" "Let it be clear that this Court is in full agreement with Cubby and Auvil. Computer bulletin boards should generally be regarded in the same context as book-stores, libraries and network affiliates" "It is Prodigy's own policies, technology and staffing decisions which have altered the scenario and mandated the finding that it is a publisher" 44. Zeran .v. America Online [1997] 129 F3d 327 illustrates how far the United States by statute has sought to protect Internet providers. Wilkinson C.J. said:"Section 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service. Specifically, Section 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher's role. Thus, lawsuits seeking to hold a service providers liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions -- such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content -- are barred" www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html 8/9