Web site owners who allow visitors to post comments or other personal information may be more liable for their users' content than previously thought, if the rulings in two recent court cases are any indication.

As reported by Anne Broache on CNET's News.com today, federal district judges have ruled in two separate cases that web site operators - in these cases, FriendFinder and Roommates.com - may be liable for the content their users have posted. In the FriendFinder case, a narrower interpretation of Section 230 of Title V of the 1996 Telecommunications Act could leave the site owner liable for fraudulent postings alleging to be someone else and portraying them in a negative way. This interpretation is based on the idea that the plaintiff in the case had her "intellectual property rights" violated under state law, which is specifically not included as being protected under Section 230.

The concern is that while previous court rulings have upheld the idea that web site owners are not responsible for user-generated content that is libelous or defaming, this new approach - claiming that one's "publicity rights" have been violated, will cause legal headaches for site operators. Laws covering intellectual property aren't uniform between states, so site operators could find themselves having to conform to the most strict laws in the country in order to meet the minimum standards.

Anne's article made me think of the question Raivyn posted on her Idiot's Guide to Blogging site on Monday. Raivyn asked whether comments are an essential part of a blog. Some say yes, that blogs need the give-and-take that comments allow visitors to have with the blogger. Others, including Raivyn, argue that comments are not an absolutely required part of a blog. (To participate in that conversation, stop by her site and weigh in with your comments!)

I agree with Raivyn on this, however. I think comments are an important way to create the sense of community many bloggers and social publishers are seeking, but they come with a price: extra maintenance to keep the spam commenters away (though services like Akismet and Drupal creator Dries Buytaert's new Mollom do help automate that monitoring). Also, even if legally there's no need to moderate comments that may be defamatory or libelous, I believe social publishers have a moral responsibility to keep the conversation civil, which means having at least a simple code of conduct for their site's visitors to follow when commenting.

Efforts to make web site operators responsible for the actions of their visitors often stem from the "blame the technology" approach to governing society. If we assume that people are going to do bad things, we limit the access to the tools that might allow them to do those things. If bloggers and social publishers refuse to accept the moral responsibility to moderate their communities, the courts - or Congress - may choose to step in and do it for them. I don't think that's a future any of us involved in social publishing would be happy with.

Photo credit: Joe Gratz (see Joe's photos at Flickr)