Scenario in US

Special Issues and Limitations

The three cases aforementioned reflect different complications concerning the lawsuits of online defamation in the U.S. Before the CDA of 1996, ISPs face possible claims and liability that might harm their operations and the freedom of the Internet because of the defamatory content in its website or services. In the aftermath of the enactment of the CDA, ISPs suddenly become totally immune from any liability and lawsuits. This change is not only dramatic but also ironic. In the case of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. vs. Prodigy, we see that an ISP with a good intention might be "unethically" charged. However, in the case of Zeran vs. AOL, we see how an innocent victim of vicious defamatory harassment lost his case. In implementing and enacting of Section 230, it appears that U.S. courts and Congress are more concerned with and dedicated in keeping the Internet free of restraints by immunizing the ISP and encouraging them to self-regulate. However, there are no rules overlooking the self regulation of ISP, then how can we assure the effect these self-regulatory measures and the amount of effort the ISPs make? The victim of the tort of defamation seems to be neglected. The impact of Section 230 involves many ethical issues and should be reconsidered by the U.S. Congress carefully.