CDA 网站承办者的民事责任豁免法

-- 彼岸网的免责法律保护

 

美国在1996年通过的CDA法案（Communication Decency Act of 1996) 47 U.S.C. §230(c)1) 明确表明，任何一个互动网站承办者或用户都不能视为任何其他信息内容提供者的发表者或陈述者。( “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.” )

--- 翻译不准确，应为（大郎）：任何一个互动网站承办者或用户都不能视为其他作者提供的信息的发表者和陈述者。

 

CDA法案定义”互动计网站承办者” 为提供众多的用户联网至计算机服务器的任何信息服务，系统，或联网软件提供者，特别包括一个提供连接互联网的服务或系统和其他图书馆或教育单位承办或提供的系统。  47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) (“The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.”)

 

法律对 “互动计网站承办者”的定义是非常广阔的，法院已经解析这个法律是要实现保护言论自由的目的。国会意识到侵犯人身权利的诉讼威胁会对正在蓬勃兴起的互联网言论方式带来的威胁，特制定CDA来保护互联网百家争鸣的言论繁荣景象。因此，尽管法律并没有取消最初发表诽谤言论者的责任，但是国会不想因为第三者的潜在的诽谤性言论给充当信息交换工具的网站承办者带来民事侵犯人身权力的法律责任。  见Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. 1997) (“Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium.... Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum.... None of this means, of course, that the original culpable party who posts defamatory messages would escape accountability.... Congress made a policy choice, however, not to deter harmful online speech through the separate route of imposing tort liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties' potentially injurious messages.”)   大量的联邦法院案例运用CDA 法律给众多的网站承办者和商业承办商带来责任豁免。 见 Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C.Cir. 2014); Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008); Craigslist, 519 F.3d at 672. That includes GoDaddy. See Kruska v. Perverted Justice Found. Inc., No. CV 08–0054–PHX–SMM, 2008 WL 2705377, at *3 (D.Ariz. July 9, 2008) (“GoDaddy, as a web host, qualifies as an interactive computer service provider under the CDA.”).  见 Ascentive, LLC v. Opinion Corp., 842 F.Supp.2d 450, 2011 WL 6181452 (E.D.N.Y. Dec.13, 2011)

 

该法律同时明文制定 “取代” (preemption) -- 任何以任何州法律或地方法律启动的诉讼或民事责任不能和该法律相冲突。47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3) (“No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”)

 

一个网站可以是完全的服务网站也可以是内容提供网站。如果网站只是被动贴出 完全是第三者发表的内容，那么这个网站针对这些第三者内容仅仅就是一个网站承办者。但是如果这个网站刊登自己创作的内容，或者全部或部分负责创作内容，那么这个网站就是内容提供者。比如彼岸网以网主“彼岸网” 或Admin 网名发出的博文。因此，如果一个网站只是提供上网发表言论的服务，没有介入任何网站用户的内容创作，那么这个网站就是一个“被动”服务网站，因此就会享有完全的免责豁免，将不为网站用户或其他网站创作的潜在的诽谤言论承担任何责任。彼岸网就是这样的网站。[注1]

 

 

 

 

 

 ------

注1:  一个网站有全权决定是否限制或取消任何第三者内容，也是在CDA保护范围之内，即使一个网站同意取消但后来有不取消的行为。见Seldon v. Magedson, 2012 WL 4475274 (S.D.N.Y.  2012) (The decision whether to restrict or remove content falls squarely within a website operator's exercise of a publisher's traditional role and is therefore subject to the CDA's broad immunity, even where the website operator has otherwise agreed to restrict or remove content. See, e.g., Murawski, 514 F.Supp.2d at 591 (citing, inter alia, Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330) (the CDA immunized website from liability for failing to remove defamatory third-party content even though website had allegedly agreed to do so); see also Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1102–03 (9th Cir.2009) (CDA barred negligent-undertaking claim against website that had allegedly agreed to remove defamatory content and failed to do so).)