A New York judge’s libel ruling Thursday against the Prodigy online service sent chills through the rest of the online world, but — according to the judge himself — Prodigy may have more to worry about than its competitors. State Court Judge Stuart Ain allowed Stratton Oakmont Inc., an investment bank, to proceed with a $200 million libel suit. The bank holds Prodigy responsible for statements about it made by Prodigy subscribers on the service’s electronic bulletin board last fall, which the bank contends were libelous. The implication is that theburgeoning on-line information industrybears liability for any fabrication or obscenity carried on its communications channels. Ironically, the judge said Prodigy is more vulnerable to libel claims than other services because it has booted obscene messages off its bulletin boards and scrutinized subscriber speech. ButTIME senior technology editor Philip Elmer-DeWittsays other online providers shouldn’t feel safe, since the Supreme Court’s conservative membership may tend to side against them in such matters.
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Donald Trump Is TIME's 2024 Person of the Year
- TIME’s Top 10 Photos of 2024
- Why Gen Z Is Drinking Less
- The Best Movies About Cooking
- Why Is Anxiety Worse at Night?
- A Head-to-Toe Guide to Treating Dry Skin
- Why Street Cats Are Taking Over Urban Neighborhoods
- Column: Jimmy Carter’s Global Legacy Was Moral Clarity
Contact us at letters@time.com