This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Peter A. Taylor February 1, 2010 – May 21, 2010 BA621 Business Law Lesson #5 Assignment #3 Case 12-2 Summary: Optinrealbig.com v. Ironport Systems (SpamCop.net) This case (pages 320-321 of your text) considered defamation in the context of Internet communications. The court considers when a false statement made over the Internet constitutes defamation, and who can be held liable if defamation exists. The following questions (from page 321 of your text) address the court's reasoning in Case 12-2. 1) Identify the court's conclusion in Case 12-2. Clue: Reread the final paragraph of the court's decision. The court concluded that even if SpamCop were not immune due to the Communications Decency Act, OptIn could not prove that SpamCop’s actions were defamatory. The court weighed the overall public interest in deciding if SpamCop should reveal hidden user information in the name of protecting a mass mailer, and it based its decision on ethical norms of freedom (of speech on the Internet) and efficiency...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 05/06/2010 for the course BA LMA01 taught by Professor Weinstein during the Spring '10 term at Antelope Valley College.
- Spring '10