[webmaven]

> Disagree. Newspapers and ISP follow under this regulation. Social media networks have been able to skirt the issue. If newspapers can get sued for their content and the phone company can't, it only makes sense that this applies to social media companies are held to the same liabilities or protections.

Okay, I'll bite. Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish? How about a comment someone leaves on their website?

[happythomist]

> Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish?

Why shouldn't they? If the letter is libelous, then they're responsible for distributing it to a larger audience.

[webmaven]

But is distribution sufficient to trigger liability?

Printing a letter to the editor isn't authoring it, after all. The newspaper is exercising some editorial control in that letters to the editor are not all printed, but it isn't endorsement per-se, just a judgement that there is some public interest in making it available. Any liability for libel should surely lie with the letter's author rather than the newspaper.

I also note that you ignored the latter half of my question.

[joshuamorton]

> I also note that you ignored the latter half of my question.

In case you weren't aware, the answer, currently, to the second half of your question, is that they aren't liable for a website comment, due to section 230.

As for the first half of your question, the newspaper affirmatively chooses to publish the letter. That's where they get the liability. The website does not, it simply fails to censor it.

[triceratops]

> How about a comment someone leaves on their website?

IIUC they actually aren't responsible for that since they didn't write or publish it.