1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Input: Summarize the differences of speech liabilities between publisher, distributor and common carrier, with case citations.

ChatGPT:

Publisher, distributor, and common carrier are three distinct entities that have different liabilities when it comes to speech. Here are the differences and case citations:

1. Publisher: Publishers are liable for the content they publish because they have editorial control over what is being distributed. They are responsible for ensuring that the content is accurate, not defamatory, and does not infringe on any intellectual property rights. For example, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that a newspaper publisher could be held liable for publishing a false and defamatory advertisement about a public official.

2. Distributor: Distributors are typically not liable for the content they distribute because they do not have editorial control over the content. They are merely conduits for information and do not have any responsibility to monitor or censor the content. For example, in Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), the Supreme Court held that a bookseller could not be held liable for distributing obscene materials because they did not have knowledge of the content.

3. Common carrier: Common carriers are entities that transport goods or information from one place to another. They are not liable for the content of the information they transport because they are not responsible for the content. For example, in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), the Supreme Court held that cable television operators are common carriers and cannot be held liable for the content of the programming they transmit.

In summary, publishers have the most liability for the content they publish, distributors have some protection from liability, and common carriers are generally not liable for the content they transport.

Input: A follow up question: how did this distinction affect the later internet-related legislations and cases?

The distinction between publisher, distributor, and common carrier has been an important factor in shaping internet-related legislation and cases. Here are a few examples:

1. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: This law was enacted in 1996 to address concerns about liability for online content. It provides immunity to online service providers for content posted by third parties, as long as the provider does not create or develop the content. This provision is based on the distributor model, as online service providers are treated similarly to bookstores or newsstands that distribute content created by others.

2. Zeran v. America Online: In this 1997 case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the distributor model to an online service provider. The court held that AOL could not be held liable for defamatory messages posted by a third party on its bulletin board because AOL was acting as a distributor, not a publisher, of the content.

3. Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.: In this 1995 case, the New York Supreme Court held that Prodigy Services Co., an online service provider, could be held liable for defamatory comments posted by a third party on its bulletin board. The court applied the publisher model, as Prodigy had a policy of moderating and editing user-generated content.

4. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com: In this 2008 case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Roommates.com, a website that allowed users to search for roommates based on various criteria, could not claim immunity under Section 230 because it was involved in the creation of the content. The court applied a hybrid approach, finding that Roommates.com was acting as a publisher and a distributor.

Overall, the distinction between publisher, distributor, and common carrier continues to be relevant in internet-related legislation and cases, as courts and lawmakers grapple with the challenges of regulating online speech and protecting free expression.