the provisions included by Congress concerning the liability of Internet Service Providers remained unchanged. The section states that: “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Because hate speech on the Internet needs to be posted on a Web site, which in turns has to be hosted by a provider, the question of ISP’s liability is important. Even in cases involving child pornography, libel and defamation the provider America Online was not found legally actionable by the courts. VII.AOL Case StudyThe service provider America Online (AOL) was involved in tree major cases, where Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, which prohibit Internet Service Providers to be held responsible for the content of messages posted on their network, was upheld. In 1994, Richard Russell photographed and videotaped John Doe (fictive name) and two other minors engage in sexual activity with each other and with him. He then used an America Online (AOL) bulletin board to sell the photos and videotapes, without actually showing the images on the Internet. In 1997, John Doe's mother, Jane Doe (fictive name), sued Russell and AOL, asking the court to order Russell and/or AOL to pay her and her son $8 million to compensate them for their emotional injuries. In Doe v. America Online, Jane Doe claimed that AOL was negligent because it knew that Russell and other pedophiles used AOL to market and distribute child pornographic materials. The issue in this case was “whether a computer service provider with notice of a defamatory third party posting is entitled to immunity under section 230 of the CDA.” AOL asked the trial court to dismiss Doe's complaint, arguing that AOL has immunity from this lawsuit under a federal statute and the Court ruled in the ISP’s favor. In Blumenthal v. Drudge , M...
