| | Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, web hosts enjoy a limited immunity from civil prosecution. The reasoning behind the law is that the multitude of websites per hosts makes it impossible for them to know what exactly is being hosted. This immunity usually extends to libel, with certain exceptions. A webhost made aware of defamatory statements must immediately remove them to remain immune. Also, statements made by or with the knowledge of the hosts are fair game for a lawsuit. One of the more notable uses of Section 230 is by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has a unique position as both webhost and website. The Foundation has always prevailed, due to the sheer amount of data hosted and the relative autonomy of each site. Their success has led to some [[website]]s believing such laws do not apply to them. However, these sites are severely mistaken because they are not webhosts, but rather individual sites. Unlike the Foundation, which serves as a confederation of websites, the owners of other websites are in direct control of their content, thereby incurring liability for it. | | Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, web hosts enjoy a limited immunity from civil prosecution. The reasoning behind the law is that the multitude of websites per hosts makes it impossible for them to know what exactly is being hosted. This immunity usually extends to libel, with certain exceptions. A webhost made aware of defamatory statements must immediately remove them to remain immune. Also, statements made by or with the knowledge of the hosts are fair game for a lawsuit. One of the more notable uses of Section 230 is by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has a unique position as both webhost and website. The Foundation has always prevailed, due to the sheer amount of data hosted and the relative autonomy of each site. Their success has led to some [[website]]s believing such laws do not apply to them. However, these sites are severely mistaken because they are not webhosts, but rather individual sites. Unlike the Foundation, which serves as a confederation of websites, the owners of other websites are in direct control of their content, thereby incurring liability for it. |
| | + | [[Answers in Genesis]], [[Living Waters]], [[Creation Ministries International]], the [[Institute for Creation Research]], [[Richard Fangrad]], [[Calvin Smith]], [[Ken Ham]], [[Ray Comfort]], [[the Bible]], the [[Creation Museum]], the [[Ark Encounter]], [[Got Questions Ministries]], and several others have all been libeled; with [[Wikipedia]] (and [[HuffPost]] and "Rational"Wiki) accusing Ham and his affiliates of pseudoscience, Media Bias/"Fact Check" accusing CMI, Fangrad, and Smith of the same thing, when in reality they are doing the exact opposite of pseudoscience. [[PewDiePie" has been accused by "Rational"Wiki (quotation marks indicate not really) of encouraging his followers to hack printers to spread messages telling people to subscribe to him, when in reality the hacking started entirely without PewDiePie knowing that it happened. |