La liberté d'expression sur l'internet justifie-t-elle l'impunité ? À propos de l'arrêt de la Cour suprême de Californie Barrett v. Rosenthal

(2) Nom donné aux leaders politiques ayant signé la Déclaration d'Indépendanceet ayant été membres de l'Assemblée Constituante.

(3) « Marketplace of ideas » concept développé par le Juge Oliver W. Holmesdans l'affaire Abrams v. US, 250 US 616 (1919) : « Persecution for the expressionof opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premisesor your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturallyexpress your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men haverealized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe evenmore than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimategood desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best testof truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition ofthe market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely canbe carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. »

(4) Communication Decency Act, 47 USC § 230(c) (1).

(5) Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA; 17 USC § 512)

(6) Pour un historique de cette affaire voir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal et http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Barrett_v_Rosenthal/

(7) Zeran v. Americal Online, Inc. (4 th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327.

(8) Section 230 « creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that wouldmake service providers liable for information originating with a third-party userof the service. Specifically, § 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims thatwould place a computer provider in a publisher's role. Thus, lawsuits seekingto hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorialfunctions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone oralter content- are barred. ».

(9) Le terme « publisher » en anglais a une acception plus large que celle d'éditeur.