3 ms·
I think you're thinking of CompuServe and Prodigy, respectively. The lawsuits against them were Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Pr
by aw1621107 3y ago
I think you're thinking of CompuServe and Prodigy, respectively. The lawsuits against them were Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. Those two lawsuits were the motivation for the passage of Section 230.
I think you have a minor detail wrong - Prodigy was found liable for defamation posted by clients, not hate speech - but the broad strokes are right.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
- oblio 3y agoLOL, it's THAT Stratton Oakmont :-)) It's that sleazy company from the Wolf of Wall Street. How did they ever win a trial?
- aw1621107 3y ago> How did they ever win a trial? In this particular case, the court ruled that Prodigy was the publisher of its users' content because of its efforts to exercise editorial control, which made it liable for what its users said.