Question

Waterstone, however, posted the anonymous message on the Artists for Justice site and included it in an e-newsletter to subscribers. Waterstone exercised some discretion in choosing which messages to post and send to subscribers, generally omitting those that were unrelated to stolen art. Does Heigl have a valid defamation claim against Waterstone and her website?
a. No, service providers will not be liable for content provided by someone else.
b. Yes, internet service providers will always be liable for defamatory content.
c. No, because the service provider had not been notified that the allegations were untrue.
d. Yes, because the service provider selected which content to post and send to subscribers.

Answer 1

Answer:

A. No, service providers will not be liable for content provided by someone else.

Explanation:

Service providers anchor its objectives on providing internet service and all sorts. However, there's always a caveat that individual user takes all the responsibilities as regards activities done on the internet. Hence, the passage reads that Walterstone exercise some level of discretion as what to showcase to people. Walterstone has thus exhibited one of the rules of professional conducts. This does not in any way implicate the service providers. The onus here is on the users.

Answer 2

Answer:

a. No, service providers will not be liable for content provided by someone else.

Explanation:

Service providers will not be responsible for content provided by someone else, so we can state that Heigl does not have a valid defamation claim against Waterstone and his website. This is because service providers are solely responsible for making an environment available once a content provider can express itself by taking full responsibility for what is being expressed.

A content provider is a person or a legal entity that displays information on the internet that he finds relevant on a given subject, through hosting providers.