I can't help but think that My Space, like an ISP or the telephone company, is a neutral carrier of content and therefore not responsible for what happens in that space. Now, I should say I am NOT a policy-wonk on new communication technology, and my last brush with policy on this was in, oh, 1999, and I suspect things have changed. For those of you who are knowledgeable about policy: Why isn't My Space viewed as a common carrier, and hence not responsible for the content that is shown on its pages? Or is it, and this whole lawsuit is just, well, B.S.? ~Jenny Stromer-Galley -- Assistant Professor Department of Communication, SS 340 University at Albany, SUNY 1400 Washington Ave. Albany, NY 12222 518-442-4873 jstromer@albany.edu http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer

Possibly, but I think there's a few significant differences.

In the MySpace cases, a crime was committed by someone against a minor. We're not talking about "metal-inspired" teen suicide ... perhaps more analogous with the record company that sold music to the Columbine teenagers, but I don't recall that claim being made ... at least, not in court ...

Also, it's not just about these court cases ... there are no numbers mentioned in that story, but let's assume the complainants are after another $30Mill each ... Does anyone know the payout figure from the first case? Has it settled? Murdoch only paid $580Mill for MySpace in the first place, so adding $150Mill to that looks bad for the bottom line ... maybe they can afford it, maybe not ... there's also the compliance cost, which they have already tried to meet (apparently).

But it's also about the political pressure this will generate. Parents forming anti-MySpace lobby groups - getting the entire legislative framework arround the protections that a social netwok provider must comply with changed. The US government is traditionally loathe to interefere with big business and their practices, but they also traditionally very quickly and quite irrationally respond to any suggestion that children might be abused (see Dana Boyd on moral panics: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/01/10/a_few_more_thou.html) ... ignoring children in danger is a sure-fire vote loser and these examples give the campaigners a clear rallying point ... and they're in several states ...

Didn't I read something the other day about crimes being committed in the Second Life environment??

Time will tell ... thoughts? predictions?

Cheers, Hughie

On Jan 18 2007, elw@stderr.org wrote:

...

For those of you who are knowledgeable about policy: Why isn't My Space viewed as a common carrier, and hence not responsible for the content that is shown on its pages? Or is it, and this whole lawsuit is just, well, B.S.?

The presence of advertising (of their own) all over MySpace's pages would seem to be one of the first of many reasons to kick them out of common-carrier status.

I'm not sure I follow this. MySpace is clearly not a common carrier, but common carriers advertise and carry ads all the time. My telephone carrier(s) plaster ads everywhere they can think of. DLB -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu

On Jan 18 2007, Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:

I can't help but think that My Space, like an ISP or the telephone company, is a neutral carrier of content and therefore not responsible for what happens in that space.

True in general for some activities, but not others. They will be treated somewhat differently depending on whether the claim sounds in libel, copyright, criminal pornography, or something else. They can be required to react to content on the system, but generally cannot be required to police content on the system.

For those of you who are knowledgeable about policy: Why isn't My Space viewed as a common carrier, and hence not responsible for the content that is shown on its pages?

MySpace is not a common carrier, nor are other ISPs/OSPs. They are not regulated as a common carrier, and are not required to provide services (carriage) to anyone who requests service.

Or is it, and this whole lawsuit is just, well, B.S.?

The lawsuit is largely BS. MySpace is a media distributor for First Amendment purposes, and cannot be required to screen or purge content unless they have actual knowledge that the content passing over their system. They are also almost certainly not the proximate (legal) cause of any harmful activity that occurs off-line. That is not the standard outside the U.S., BTW, since no one else has our First Amendment jurisprudence. -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu

On Jan 18 2007, Hugemusic wrote:

Possibly, but I think there's a few significant differences.

In the MySpace cases, a crime was committed by someone against a minor. We're not talking about "metal-inspired" teen suicide ... perhaps more analogous with the record company that sold music to the Columbine teenagers, but I don't recall that claim being made ... at least, not in court ...

These kind of lawsuits are fairly common against media/publishers -- not just the "metal-inspired" teen suicide cases, but the "copycat" cases (e.g., the Olivia N. case in which the plaintiff, who was raped with a plumber's helper, alleged that the perpetrators got the idea from a television show and so sued the broadcaster), and the "forum for crime" cases (e.g., the series of cases against Soldier of Fortune magazine for attempted murders from the ads for hit men in they run in their classified section). This most closely resembles the Soldier of Fortune type cases. Generally the plaintiffs lose (in the U.S. at least) either on First Amendment grounds, or for lack of causation -- that is, providing a forum for advocacy or exchange of criminal speech is not a proximate cause of resulting criminal activity.

Time will tell ... thoughts? predictions?

If MySpace wants to tough it out, they probably win on summary judgment. But as you point out that creates bad PR. The better business strategy is to install safety features and/or settle. -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu

Interestingly, I used the same coffee shop reference here<http://digitalconversations.blogspot.com/2007/01/myspace-parental-responsibility.html>. Thank you for taking it a step further. There was a recent-ish Law & Order episode that dealt with similar issues surrounding social networking sites (the fictional "B-friendz site). With such a large viewing audience, I am always nervous when such a big production handles such potentially controversial issues - but I was quite pleased with how the show discussed responsibility not only on the web site's part, but also on the parents. Episode Information can be found here<http://www.tv.com/law-and-order/avatar/episode/870987/summary.html> . Kelly Boudreau Concordia University, Montreal Canada www.gamecode.ca On 1/19/07, Alexis Turner <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org> wrote:

If a coffee shop/bookstore/library/etc allows both adults and teenagers to use its premises, and pedophiles happen to like it because it is near a Catholic girl's school (and thus uniformed students happen to frequent it), would the coffee shop be responsible if a pedophile struck up a conversation with a student in the shop and this later led to an assault? In other words, is the coffee shop somehow *facilitating*, aiding, or abetting the aspects of this event, including the illegal ones? If so, does this mean the business model of the coffee shop (allowing people to meet and talk) inherently assists illegal activity? What steps would the coffee shop legally, or morally, be required to take to prevent this from happening? If it is not *required* to take any steps, should it anyway? -Alexis