I'm in the same boat with you. I don't visit the anti-H1B sites, because I want to keep my blood pressure down and I don't tolerate racist bigots that well, but

I'm in the same boat with you. I don't visit the anti-H1B sites, because I want to keep my blood pressure down and I don't tolerate racist bigots that well, but the ComputerWorld article about the closure of the websites is troubling. Either there're details the article left out or the judge is seriously overstepping his authority. I thought it was a long held principle that community sites can not be held responsible for users' content. The story a month or so ago about the family of a woman whose ex-boyfriend has posted all kinds of derogatory and threatening material on multiple websites (incl. RipoffReport.com, who is the only website refusing the take down the content) has a completely different outcome. The judge in that case said he can't force the websites to take down the content, but several have done so voluntarily, RipoffReport.com being the only holdout. I wonder if the fact that that case had an individual plaintiff rather than a company has anything to do with the different outcome?