Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

The court held that CompuServe acted as a distributor of theRumorville newsletter rather than its publisher.32 This holdingwas based on the court’s finding that CompuServe did not exerciseeditorial control over the Journalism Forum bulletin board, butrather had contracted with an independent company, CameronCommunications, Inc., to “manage, review, create, delete, edit andotherwise control [its] contents” in accordance with the editorialand technical standards of CompuServe.33 Further, the courtfound that Rumorville was published by Don FitzpatrickAssociates, who accepted total responsibility for its contents.34CompuServe’s only activity in managing the bulletin board wasrequiring Cameron Communications to limit access to Rumorvilleto those CompuServe subscribers having a membershiparrangement with Don Fitzpatrick.35 Since CompuServe had “noopportunity to review” the content of the newsletter before it wasuploaded and made available to subscribers, the court found thatCompuServe exercised no more editorial control over Rumorville“than does a public library, bookstore or newsstand” over materialit makes available to the public.36 The court went on to hold thatthe proper standard of liability to be applied to CompuServe inthis case was whether it, as a distributor of Rumorville, “knew orhad reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorvillestatements.”37 Since Cubby offered no evidence that CompuServeknew or had reason to know of the statements at issue, the courtrefused to hold CompuServe liable for their content.38Cubby’s holding was not followed by a later case, StrattonOakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.39 In this case, ananonymous user of Prodigy’s “Money Talk” bulletin board postedstatements claiming that Stratton Oakmont, a securitiesinvestment banking firm, and Daniel Porush, Stratton’s president,committed criminal and fraudulent acts and was a “cult of brokerswho either lie for a living or get fired.”40 Unlike, the decision in32. See id. at 140.33. Id.34. See Cubby, 776 F. Supp. at 137.35. See id.36. Id.37. Id. at 140-41.38. See id. at 141.39. See Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs., Co., 1995 WL 323710 at *1 (N.Y.Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995).40. Id.