Talk:Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Typo

Hey folks, "Straton Oakmont" is a typographical error. There are two ts in Stratton. I'm going to move the article, and, in keeping with traditional modes of legal citation, I shall abbreviate "Company" to "Co." Furthermore, Daniel Porush was a plaintiff separate from Stratton Oakmont, and as such, he is not to be included in the citation. Best Hydriotaphia 06:05, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Also, the external link doesn't work, so I'm going to erase it. Hydriotaphia 06:16, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Marked

This page is being revised over the next month as part of the Cyberlaw WikiProject. Alexkozak (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited

This page was revised as a part of the Cyberlaw WikiProject. Alexkozak (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award

The article currently gives no indication of what damages were awarded. -- ToE 22:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material

Below material was tagged for needing sources for several months. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

Following the decision, online service providers were much less likely to screen content created by users given the court's holding that exercising editorial control could create liability for the content of those posts. In effect, the ruling discouraged family-oriented (or any) sites from screening for offensive content. The decision left service providers with difficult choices between simply accepting the legal liability for content they didn't themselves create or solicit, restricting the speech of their customers (such as filtering messages before making them visible to others), or refraining from moderating even grossly inappropriate content (which the Stratton court thought constituted editorial control). In 1996, Congress effectively reversed this opinion via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The legislative history specifically says the law was intended to overrule Stratton Oakmont "and any other similar decisions which have treated providers and users as publishers or speakers of content that is not their own because they have restricted access to objectionable material."