Replies to post #115813 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[MinnieM]

The thought behind the idea is good, but, administration of it would be a nightmare. But, your question on liability would make it out of the question if it were my board.

Interesting discussion.

Reply to Scad:
***Legality...hmm, just thought of something else too. Right now, because of the laws governing internet postings, IHUB enjoys a certain "immunity" from prosecution

by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). IF, IF you start policing the boards now, where is that going to put you with regard to liability and responsibility for monitoring all posts and "enforcing" it. I think you might be asking for trouble there. Right now, you are protected.***

[IH Geek [Dave]]

It isn't a case of policing the boards. It is a matter of requiring users to make a disclosure and the assessment of administrative sanctions if we ascertain that they are not in compliance.

In any event, 230 immunity includes operating policies and decisions used in dealing with third party content.

[janice shell]

Right now, because of the laws governing internet postings, IHUB enjoys a certain "immunity" from prosecution

by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). IF, IF you start policing the boards now, where is that going to put you with regard to liability and responsibility for monitoring all posts and "enforcing" it. I think you might be asking for trouble there. Right now, you are protected.

I don't think so. The idea isn't to police content. It's simply to identify what's advertisement.