This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was viewed with disgust by many members of the adult film community, however recent litigation is proving that the CDA, in particular Section 230, may not be that bad after all.

With the increase of web sites like PornStar Performance, that allow members of the adult community to comment about the abilities or inabilities of their co-workers, there is growing concern about the possibility of libel/slander lawsuits being levied against owners of chatrooms, message boards and even blogs.

However, Section 230 may offer such site owners protection from this litagation.

Section 230's goal is to make ISPs and immune when defamatory material is found on the web sites they host. But it isn't limited to ISPs alone; it also applies to any "provider or user of an interactive computer service," which would include message boards and chat rooms and other places where third parties can post content.

"Interactive computer service" is defined as "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational systems."

According to Section 230, no such person or entity "shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This is significant, because liability for defamation focuses on publishers; and liability for slander focuses on speakers.

Who counts as a "provider or user of an interactive computer service"?

Significantly, online newspapers such as the New York Times don't count.

Their service is not "interactive," since only content their editors directly approve can appear on their site. And arguably, they don't provide a "computer service," but rather a journalistic one, anyway.

But ISPs like AOL do count - as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made plain in its decision in Zeran v. American Online.

The effect of Zeran is to confer on providers and users of interactive computer services complete immunity from liability for transmitting the defamation of a third party.

And sites like PornStarPerforamnce very probably counts too. It is "interactive"; as noted above, not only can users author, but also alter, its content. And it arguably is a "computer service" - not, say, a journalism service, as that term is currently understood.

Section 230 came into play in a recent California Supreme Court case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, which may allow chatroom, message board and blog owners to breath a sigh of relief.

The case focused on a website operated by Barrett that attempted to expose health frauds.

The defendent, Rosenthal, directed the Humantics Foundation for Women and operated an Internet discussion group. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant and others had committed libel by maliciously distributing defamatory statements in emails and Internet postings that supposedly impugned the plaintiffs’ character and competence and that also allegedly disparaged their attempts to combat fraud.

The plaintiffs further argued that the defendant republished some of these messages even after she had been warned that they contained false and defamatory information.

Upon considering all of the issues, the California Supreme Court held that the CDA, prohibits distributor liability for Internet publications.

The Court went on to rule that the CDA immunizes individual users of interactive computer services regarding the content of others.

While this case only applies to California and cannot be considered controlling law in other states it does set a persuasive precedent that may be followed by other states.

None the less, Barrett does signal the fact that some courts will allow ISPs, message board and chatroom website owners broad immunity from civil litigation lawsuits in regards to posts made by third parties.

However the broad language of Section 230 will no doubt leave it open to attacks from conservative lawmakers and interest groups in the future.