Talk:Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.

Untitled
I find the article somewhat confusing: it says that this Federal case was effectively overturned by the decision in Stratton, which was a NY state court decision. IANAL but I didn't think it was possible for a lower court to overturn the opinion of a higher one. Or is this article implying that since the reasoning in Cubby was based on state law it became defunct when Stratton was decided, since that case effectively made the existing state law moot? Can someone with more legal knowledge clarify this and perhaps make the article clearer? -- Hux 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Cubby vs CompuServe, CompuServe was hosting the Journalism Forum, and Rumorville existed within that forum as a private area; only Rumorville subscribers had access. In this case, CompuServe didn't know that Rumorville was posting false and defamatory information. (The allegedly defamatory remarks included a suggestion that individuals at Skuttlebut gained access to information first published by Rumorville "through some back door"; a statement that Blanchard was "bounced" from his previous employer, WABC; and a description of Skuttlebut as a "new start-up scam.")

In the case of Stratton, a state court found that Prodigy had the ability to edit and/or delete posts. In fact, Prodigy had software set up to filter out certain words. Uh, oh, the court said. If you can and do exert control, you can and do assume responsibility. The Stratton case did NOT overturn Cubby; it just defined the law under different circumstances.

A decision establishes precedence if it breaks new legal ground, but that precedence is only binding on courts subordinate to the court making the decision. You'd think the "state supreme court" is the highest court in the state, but in New York, that's not true. Cubby was a federal ruling, so it was noted by state courts, but only within the Southern District of New York. While neither case was much of a legal precedent, both were legally influential, because they were well-reasoned and well-publicized; any state or federal judge in the US dealing with a similar case would be likely to read the decision and say, "Yeah, that sounds good to me", and rule in a similar manner. 71.254.230.46 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Future Edits on the Way
This page is being revised over the next month as part of the Cyberlaw WikiProject. Rlough (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402173045/http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cmcl/publications/Defamation10.html to http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cmcl/publications/Defamation10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429091608/http://www.internetdefamationlawblog.com/communications_decency_act_immunity/ to http://www.internetdefamationlawblog.com/communications_decency_act_immunity/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)