what is a site's liability for actions by its users?

if they violate local laws

[LifeinAsia]

Besides the usual "ask a lawyer" (which I plan to do, but am trying to get some background information and possible case studies first) responses, I wonder about the liability of the site owner if users violate local (or national) laws by their actions.

Let's say a site allows people to create groups (similar to Meetup) and the group owner can make the group public (anyone can join) or private (group owner manually approves each member). One group owner decides to create a group and refuses to admit anyone from a certain protected class of people (e.g., a certain race). In the U.S., this type of discrimination would be illegal. So what would be the site owner's level of liability for this?

My understanding of Safe Harbor is that it can provide some site owners with certain shields against liability for copyright issues in some cases, but it seems to be vague in terms of other legal issues.

Has anyone ever had (or come across) a situation like this?

[tangor]

Sadly there aren't many indicators of what is allowed or disallowed until some kind of legal action is taken. Safe Harbor has recently been gutted so even the old understandings may no longer apply.

However, most legal jurisdictions take "intent" into any examination and "intent" can change from one legal jurisdiction to another. If your gut feeling suggests that hosting (or allowing) a group/meme that is discriminatory in nature and you prevent it, you might open yourself to a charge of discrimination by the party squelched.

You'll need to discuss this with an attorney of your choice. I suggest one not only versed in intellectual properties and civil rights, but one with internet and international law experience as well.

[keyplyr]

what is a site's liability for actions by its users?

Liability is a judgement, not a condition. If a party accuses you of being liable for an action, then it needs to be proven. You are not liable by default.

AFAIK intent is not a legal term and would only serve as a discretionary factor in sentencing or retribution. If you are found liable for an action, you are liable no matter what your intent is/was.

I've been to copyright & trademark court 3 times. Once as the plaintiff & twice as the defendant, so now I have an account with a digital copyright law office.

Years ago, I moved a web site from the UCSD edu servers to web hosting where the public could access the content (while on the edu servers only students/faculty had access.) As part of the class curriculum students created MP3 of their work and posted them online.

After going public with the site, within a couple months attorneys representing the financial interests of the copyright owners hit me with C&D including a pay-for-play deal.

We went to court as I thought since the intent was non-commercial and for educational purposes. I was found at fault and once again was offered the injunction or quick removal of the copyrighted content.

[tangor]

AFAIK intent is not a legal term and

And this is why we don't offer legal advice at webmasterworld! :)

Look up "mens rea", and other versions of "legal intent".

[keyplyr]

we don't offer legal advice at webmasterworld!

Absolutely

Look up "mens rea"

That's in criminal law.

[tangor]

Also applies to contract law as well. Been there, done that. :)

[toidi]

Mitigation goes a long way to help limit liability.