The wall's responsibility for what is written on it

Is liability for what goes on online tipping ever more from the media owner to the user? Yesterday's Craigslist ruling shows that the free classifieds site is not responsible (ChicagoTribune) for allegedly discriminatory listings posted by its users. As PaidContent points out, Susan Crawford deconstructs the case and concludes that "this case isn’t the last word or even (arguably) an important word on online liability.” But she also comments that the intention of Congress in framing the relevant legislation was to offer greater protection to web publishers than the court in this case appeared to consider.

In the UK, the most recent case of liability for comments published to a website involved IPC's Yachting World website, a case in which action was taken against the writer of the comment (PressGazette) without anyone trying to claim that IPC might be liable. The mood of the day seems to shifting surely towards a recognition that we are all responsible for what we write on the wall and that suing the wall on which we write it is merest folly.

Update: Corante brings news of another case, this time in Florida, of the subject of a defamatory comment posted to a bulletin board being awarded $11 million in damages from the poster, not the host site: Corante reports,

"Originally, the Internet bulletin board Fornits.com, where the Bock's statements were posted, was also sued. The case against Ginger Warbis, the owner of the bulletin board, was later dropped."