NJ Bills Seeks To Make Site-owners Responsible For Content

[softwareNerd]

As a rule, ISP's know the name and address of people who use their service. However, to the actual web-sites (e.g. Blogger, or OO.net) people are often anonymous.

This bill, introduced in the New Jersey Legislature, asks software service providers to do more to police those who use their sites. My understanding of what it says is as follows:

• if someone posts defamatory content on a forum, and
  
• if the aggrieved party sues, and
  
• if the forum owner cannot produce the name and address of the poster
  

then...

the forum owner can be held liable for damages, rather than the original poster

I have no idea if this bill has any chance of passing, but I hope it does not.

[Matthew J]

*Feeling slightly sick to my stomach* Gross.

[AisA]

I understand the bill's sponsor is a Republican.

[softwareNerd]

No surprise there.

[JordanLand]

That's ridiculous. I certainly hope we get a public outcry about this invasion of privacy.

[Unconquered]

That's ridiculous. I certainly hope we get a public outcry about this invasion of privacy.

I don't see any "invasion of privacy" involved. The real issue is whether a forum owner *should* be held responsible for the comments of others. Actually to a degree, they should.

If their forum - which is under their control - sanctions the posting of material which libels somebody, and permits it to be displayed after the content has been pointed out to them, then they are actively abetting an illegal act. Same principle as hosting pirated videos for downloads. Who's going to argue that the only responsible party is the uploader, if the one paying for the hosting is informed of the content and fails to remove it?

Now, it is illogical to say "original poster vs. the forum owner", as this law apparently says. They should *both* be responsible parties, with different responsibilities per the different context.