Re: Infotopia Files Lawsuit Against Raging Bull, Lycos Network and Several Message Board Posters; The Company Seeks Preliminary Injunctions Business/Technology Editors
This another complete waste of shareholders money. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") Subsection 230(c)(1) provides 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."
Court decisions interpreting subsection 230(c) have broadened its ambit far beyond merely protecting "Good
Samaritan" editorial control. As interpreted, section 230 gives ISPs complete immunity from liability for defamatory content initiated by third parties, even if the ISP consciously decides to republish the defamatory content. The practical effect of these interpretations of section 230 of the CDA is to leave Internet defamation victims with no deep pocket to sue. The defamed plaintiff can no longer sue the intermediary who republished a defamatory communication. If Clinton Smith, (General Counsel and Director for Infotopia) has done even minimal research he should be aware that the case against Raging Bull and Lycos will be dismissed.
If the Company is complaining about untrue postings on Raging Bull, they should look first to the postings of their CEO, Dan Hoyng. He has posted more misinformation than any of the so-called bashers. The only damage to the name and share price of Infotopia results from actions by the officers and directors of the company.
There is almost no chance that this suit will see a courtroom. It is an attempt by he company to divert away from the egregious actions of corporate insiders and to intimidate its critics. The company should realize that there is a significant downside to filing a frivolous lawsuit aimed at chilling protected speech.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
