"additional evidence" your quote says. Just before that, we have:
> In one article PRODIGY stated:
> "We make no apology for pursuing a value system that reflects the culture of the millions of American families we aspire to serve. Certainly no responsible newspaper does less when it chooses the type of advertising it publishes, the letters it prints, the degree of nudity and unsupported gossip its editors tolerate."
The judge goes on to note that while Prodigy had since ceased its initial policy of direct editorial review of all content, they did not make an official announcement of this, so were still benefitting from the marketing perception that the content was vetted by Prodigy.
I don't know if I would have ruled the same way in that situation, and honestly, it was the NY Supreme Court, which is not even an appellate jurisdiction in NY, and was settled before any appeals could be heard, so it's not even clear that this would have stood.
A situation where each individual case was decided on its merits until a reasonable de facto standard could evolve I thing would have been more responsible and flexible than a blanked immunity standard which has led to all sorts of unfortunate dynamics that significantly damage the ability to have an online public square for discourse.
> In one article PRODIGY stated:
> "We make no apology for pursuing a value system that reflects the culture of the millions of American families we aspire to serve. Certainly no responsible newspaper does less when it chooses the type of advertising it publishes, the letters it prints, the degree of nudity and unsupported gossip its editors tolerate."
The judge goes on to note that while Prodigy had since ceased its initial policy of direct editorial review of all content, they did not make an official announcement of this, so were still benefitting from the marketing perception that the content was vetted by Prodigy.
I don't know if I would have ruled the same way in that situation, and honestly, it was the NY Supreme Court, which is not even an appellate jurisdiction in NY, and was settled before any appeals could be heard, so it's not even clear that this would have stood.
A situation where each individual case was decided on its merits until a reasonable de facto standard could evolve I thing would have been more responsible and flexible than a blanked immunity standard which has led to all sorts of unfortunate dynamics that significantly damage the ability to have an online public square for discourse.