Talk:Carafano v. Metrosplash.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Purging original research
I just purged a lot of unsourced original research in this article which violated Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:No original research. The worst was the link to a CNN article on Ninth Circuit judicial activism in the Establishment Clause area to support an assertion about Ninth Circuit judicial activism in the Freedom of Speech Clause area, which makes no sense. The two freedoms are related only because they are in the same constitutional amendment, but that alone is the full extent of their connection; their jurisprudence has evolved separately. --Coolcaesar 03:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removing incorrect legal analysis
The article stated, "It should be noted that the applicable section of the CDA was originally intended to apply to obvious "interactive computer services" such as America Online. The courts have expanded that definition to include sites such as Matchmaker which would, on the surface, not appear to meet Congress's intended definition of "interactive computer service." This is quite controversial. Due to excessive legal bills and the wear-and-tear of fighting her case for years, however, Masterson ceded defeat and made the decision not to request a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court."
This is a faulty legal analysis. At the time the CDA was adopted, services like Matchmaker and eBay did not exist. Without exception, when this sort of matter has been tested before an appellate court, said court has affirmed that 47 230(c)(1) protection applies to a service provider where that provider has no control over content before it appears online. While this application may be controversial, it is nonetheless uniform and accepted law. Until and unless it is amended by Congress or overturned by the USSC -- and no appeals are presently before the court -- it's accepted law.
I have, accordingly, revised the article.207.69.138.10 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
