Are the Lindens Heading into Deeper Legal Water

In my morning reading of blog of all types I found Tateru Nino from Second Life Insider post “Linden Lab Silently removes content” where she informs us that several hundred parcel names and descriptions have been removed and replaced with “Description removed: Please see blog post Advertising Policy.”

Apparently, no notice was given as she was not able to fine anyone who had received notification the changes were taking place.

Grid Grind’s post “So you can’t even say you’re NOT a casino” goes into much more detail and talked to several parcel owners who’s descriptions had been replaced.

I quote from Grid Grind’s post: (*s placed by me)

It should be noted that in the Second Life Community Standards it states, “Names of Residents, objects, places and groups are broadly viewable in Second Life directories and on the Second Life website, and must adhere to PG guidelines.”

This means that technically, if the Lindens are hoping to actually enforce this rule, which they’ve rarely bothered to do in the past, they have plenty of targets to go after. Neva Naughty, Purgatory, and plenty of others, are using words like “f**k” and “Wh**e” in their land descriptions and ads. Yet they haven’t been removed. These are in direct violation of the Community Standards. The Lindens have long chosen to ignore this practice and apparently still are.

All of this makes me wonder if Linden Lab missed the Fair Housing Council vs. Roommate.com Ruling. Where some new precedents on the Communications Decency Act seem to have been set. Up until this very recent ruling providers of interactive computer services have been immune from liability for content created by third parties.

The touchstone of section 230(c) is that providers of interactive computer services are immune from liability for content created by third parties. The immunity applies to a defendant who is the “provider . . . of an interactive computer service” and is being sued “as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by” someone else. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c). “[R]eviewing courts have treated § 230(c) immunity as quite robust.” Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003)

But the Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com suite has take a major twist and turn on this.

Michael Bennett, a partner in the intellectual property department of Chicago law firm Wildman Harrold, said that previous cases confirmed and expanded immunity for ISPs, Web site operators, and listservs.

“Then this one comes down and begins to draw some lines,” he said during an interview Thursday.

The new ruling means that sites that control user-generated content — especially dating and automated brokering sites that use “matching” technology — are considered publishers and are therefore liable, Bennett said.

“If you guide the content too much, or select which of the content will be allowed, you could lose immunity for that portion of the content and be held liable as a publisher,” Bennett said. “The problem arises when nonpublishing Web sites want to put up blogs and forums. Typically, they want to guide the content to some extent, so that it reflects an appropriate image for the site and company.”

I know I am just a simple country boy from the swamps of Louisiana, but it sure seems to me that with Linden Labs trying to get involved with which content can and can not be in Second Life … They are opening themselves up to greater liability than simply ignoring it!

Edited 05 June 2007 to include Michael Bennett’s comment to this post.
Please note, the original article you quoted above is slightly inaccurate. It says:

The new ruling means that sites that control user-generated content — especially dating and automated brokering sites that use “matching” technology — are considered publishers and are therefore liable, Bennett said.

No liability was found, yet, in the Roommates.com decision. Rather, the court found that Roommates.com will have to defend itself to determine whether or not the information it provided, the limited menu selections and filtering, violates the Fair Housing Act. The only issue in the Roommates.com case was whether or not CDA immunity applied Roommates.com’s website.

If the case continues, the next phase should determine whether or not Roommates.com’s actions violated any laws.