Austn: ISPs to be liable for content?!

[richard@auscoms.com.au]

Frank wrote:
    [snip] 
>It's been long accepted that for 99% of the content their >subscribers access,
ISP's are carriers rather than publishers - and >hence not liable. 
[snip]

Is that distinction made by ourselves, as users and pundits, or by the law? A
lawyer could help here, but I seem to remember that there have been cases long
ago where newsagents were included in the defamation net...

Richard Chirgwin

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    Re: Austn: ISPs to be liable for content?!
Author: "Frank O'Connor" <frankoconnor@ozemail.com.au>
Date:       13/10/98 17:42

At 1:19 PM +1000 13/10/98, Roger Clarke wrote:
>I'm astonished that there's been no discussion on link yet about the report
>on p.1 of The Australian Computer Pages today, Tuesday 13 October.
>http://www.newsit.com.au/techno/4223737.htm

Ditto ... I would have thought it would be high on the agenda..

>It's a pretty confused report, admittedly, but it claims that the forces of
>darkness (Harradine + A/G's) are beating the more steady hand of Alston/
>DOCA/ABA, and are poised to legislate to make ISPs liable for content that
>passes through their facilities.

Mmmm ... the distinction I'm surprised nobody has mentioned is between
publishers and carriers. It's been long accepted that for 99% of the
content their subscribers access, ISP's are carriers rather than publishers
- and hence not liable. For that small amount of material which originates
on their site, or is carried by their site they are publishers ... and
hence liable.

The tone of the newspaper article was that no notice is being taken of that
distinction - and I find that very worrying indeed.

                        Regards,
**********************************
Some days you're a bug, other days a windshield.
**********************************