An important question for the Guardian is whether it could be held legally accountable for postings made by its users on its website.

The United States provides some protection for websites through the Communications Decency Act and a decision made by the California supreme court – legal action must be taken against the person who posted the offending comment, not the owner of the website.

In addition, the Defamation Act in the United States provides a defence for anyone who can show that they were not the author, editor, or publisher of the libel. Also, immunity is provided by the electronic commerce regulations for certain types of service providers who are only passively involved in publication.

However, the law in this area is still unclear. The two forms of protection previously mentioned disappear if the website does not remove the offending posting within a specified amount of time after being given notice that the posting is defamatory.

There are many more issues which are unclear. For example, if a website is found to be legally responsible, should the offending post be looked at in isolation or in the context of the conversation it came from?  The answer to this question could greatly affect the outcome of many cases.

Although there are some general protections for websites, the general scarcity of these types of cases, as well as the users, who show no sign that they want a free-for-all on the Guardian’s website, make censorship the right choice for the Guardian.

To post-moderate the content posted on its website, the Guardian monitors threads, responds to users’ reports of offensive or abusive posts, and gets advice from its head of communities, who looks at the way postings are moderated and the way the Guardian interacts with its online communities.  

All of these measures allow the Guardian to offer its users a forum to take part in while minimizing the legal risk involved.

Source: The Guardian