User-generated content has become commonplace for most websites, while online forums and comment pages permeate the Internet. The friction between the law and responsibility has made user-generated content (UGC) a constant and hot legal issue.

"The law is different now," said Barbara Wall, Associate General Counsel for Gannett, referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Originally, websites were not to police message boards, but now websites can safely filter UCG for length and readability. However, websites cannot change the meaning of the posting, according to Sherrese Smith, General Counsel for washingtonpost.com and Newsweek Interactive.

Furthermore, Section 230 gives no set standards on how websites should monitor UGC. Jon Hart, Counsel to the Online News Association, suggested that websites use journalistic judgment. Legally, websites can choose how they monitor UGC, from reacting to complaints, moderating before publishing the content, or a combination.

Hart, Smith and Wall briefly discussed two recent cases relating to UGC, involving Roommates.com and Craigslist.com. Both were sued for postings that allegedly violated the Federal Housing Act because content stated a discriminatory housing preference. Craigslist.com was protected, since the discriminatory preference came from a user-supplied text field. Roommates.com, however, was successfully sued because the content was set in a drop-down menu generated by Roommates.com.

Section 230 only applies to the web, protecting UGC. Once online UGC transcends into another medium, the traditional laws, such as libel, apply.

Despite whatever legal context they find themselves in, Smith reminds news organizations, "don't check that responsibility at the door."

Jess Ramos