Primer on Immunity for User Content

    by David Ardia
    December 16, 2007

    As a lead up to the launch of the Citizen Media Law Project’s Legal Guide
    in January, we are putting up longer, substantive blog posts on
    our project blog discussing various subjects covered in the legal guide. The first post in the series
    stems from a talk I gave at the Legal Risk Management in the Web 2.0 World conference
    in Washington, DC. As the token academic, I had the task of providing a
    general overview of the liability that publishers might face if they
    allow users to comment on or submit content to their sites.

    I adapted my notes from the talk into a rather long blog post that provides background on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA 230”) and highlights the claims and online activities it covers as well as the types of activities that might fall outside CDA 230’s immunity provisions. The post also includes a list of practical tips for those who operate blogs and other websites that allow users to comment or submit content.

    Because the post is too long for me to republish here, I’ve included just the summary.  If you are interested in reading more, the entire post can be found on the Citizen Media Law Project’s blog.


    It has now been more than ten years since Congress enacted section 230
    of the Communications Decency Act. During that time courts have held
    that CDA 230 grants interactive online services of all types, including
    blogs, forums, and
    listservs, broad immunity from tort liability so long as the
    information at issue is provided by a third party. Relatively few court
    decisions, however, have analyzed the scope of this immunity in the
    context of “mixed content” that is created jointly by the operator of
    the interactive service and a third party through significant editing
    of content or shaping of content by submission forms and
    drop-downs. Accordingly, this is an area that we will be watching
    carefully and reporting on in the future.

    So what are the practical things you can take away from this discussion? Here are five:

    1. If you passively host third-party content, you will
      be fully protected against defamation and defamation-like claims under
      CDA 230.

    2. If you exercise traditional
      editorial functions over user submitted content, such as deciding
      whether to publish, remove, or edit material, you will not lose your
      immunity unless your edits materially alter the meaning of the content.

    3. If you pre-screen objectionable content or correct, edit, or remove content, you will not lose your immunity.

    4. If you encourage or pay third-parties to create or submit content, you will not lose your immunity.

    5. If
      you use drop-down forms or multiple-choice questionnaires, you should
      be cautious of allowing users to submit information through these forms
      that might be deemed illegal.


    Tagged: bloggers cda 230 cmlp database lawsuits legal threats online speech third-party content

    Comments are closed.

  • Who We Are

    MediaShift is the premier destination for insight and analysis at the intersection of media and technology. The MediaShift network includes MediaShift, EducationShift, MetricShift and Idea Lab, as well as workshops and weekend hackathons, email newsletters, a weekly podcast and a series of DigitalEd online trainings.

    About MediaShift »
    Contact us »
    Sponsor MediaShift »
    MediaShift Newsletters »

    Follow us on Social Media