purplecape - 2:24 am on Jan 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

I base my comments on what I've read over 20 years of working in various branches of publishing. As you said, "most companies vet ads to some degree, and not in others." They do this to protect their reputation with their readers, and not for any legal reason. If they were doing that for legal reasons, that kind of inconsistency makes no sense.

It's an altogether different situation if the publisher is aware of or has reason to know that an advertiser has a bad reputation, or if the advertiser presents ads that make obviously false claims....

But, I am not a lawyer, and that's a good thing, because it allows me to toss around my unformed opinions with no fear of consequences!

In any case, I think we agree on a key point--that the legal decision that kicked off this thread was unremarkable. It would have been a surprise, and potentially had significant consequences, if the judge had decided differently.