Nannies, Blogging, and Section 230

The New York Times has an interesting article today about isawyournanny , a blog where people can post about a “nanny sighting” that triggered them to share their experience, whether the nanny was a regular Mary Poppins or abusive to the child.

As pointed out in the article, posting on the site raises both privacy and defamation issues. “Jane Doe” , who runs the site posted this disclaimer. Under common law, a distributor is liable where he knows or has reason to know that the content he distributes is defamatory. But section 230 (c) of the CDA states that providers of interactive computer services shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider, and are immune from liability for content created by third parties.

See the EFF Internet law Treatise on section 230 here.

A content provider is "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet." A content provider is not protected by the section 230 immunity. Here, the site encourages to "report bad nannies."

In Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com LLC, Judge Kozinski, writing the opinion for the 9th Circuit wrote last May:

"Imagine, for example, http://www.harrassthem.com/ with the slogan “Don’t Get Mad, Get Even.” A visitor to this website would be encouraged to provide private, sensitive and/or defamatory information about others – all to be posted online for a fee. To post the information, the individual would be invited to answer questions about the target’s name, addresses, phone numbers, social security number, credit cards, bank accounts, mothers’ maiden name, sexual orientation, drinking habits and the like. IN addition, the website would encourage the poster to provide dirt on the victim, with instructions that the information need not be confirmed, but could be based on rumor, conjecture or fabrication.

It is not clear to us that the operator of this hypothetical website would be protected by the logic of Carafano. The date match website in Carafano had no involvement in the creation and development of the defamatory and private information; the hypothetical operator of harrassthem.com would. By providing a forum designed to publish sensitive and defamatory information, and suggesting the type of information that might be disclosed to best harass and endanger the targets, this website operator might well be held responsible for creating and developing the tortuous information. Carafano did not consider whether the CDA protected such websites, and we do not read the opinion as granting CDA immunity to those who actively encourage, solicit and profit from the tortuous and unlawful communications of others."

If isawyournanny encourage denouncement, and indeed it is the site purpose, even though a few posts praise wonderful nannies, should this site still be protected by section 230? The 9th Circuit seems to answer in the negative.

Reporting child abuse is certainly something everybody should do if witnessing it, but should we not report it to the police? The New York Times article describes an instance when a woman witnessed a nanny hitting a child repeatedly. She followed the nanny for 30 minutes until she entered an apartment building, then reported what she saw to the doorman of the building. If witnessing a child being hit, isn't more efficient to call 911, and report it immediately?