Talk:Zeran v. America Online, Inc.

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.

United States Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

What, exactly, constitutes an "extremely offensive and tasteless" slogan?

Anville 21:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

changed to potentially offensive. I removed the POV tag. Feco 03:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revamp

I plan to undertake a major revamp of this page in the next few weeks. I am currently studying up on the case, and will post back here with more information soon.mjlissner (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It's needed one for a while. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I posted my rewrite today. What a lot of work! Please let your editors off their leashes, and see where I mucked up! mjlissner (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about a section about the resolution of the companion KRXO litigation? Ericgoldman (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure about that case, but IIRC, it didn't have the same significance as the Zeran v. AOL case. It might not hurt to throw some more detail in this article about it, but it also might just take relevance away from where it should be (i.e. Zeran v. AOL). Which is all to say that I guess I'd have to see the change to really have an opinion! mjlissner (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I teach the case is that SOMEONE should be required to pay Zeran, so it's natural to wonder why the radio station avoided liability (especially because it was a different basis than 47 USC 230). Maybe the radio station case should have its own page? Ericgoldman (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it satisfies notability, WP:N. Looks much less important than this case. Perhaps could have a subheading here. Cool Hand Luke 23:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is the funniest article on wikipedia 69.109.4.69 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Zeran?

The article doesn't describe why Zeran's name would be associated with the offensive postings except to say that he "neither posted the message nor had anything to do with the content of the ad." Not that I don't believe this, but why was his name added to it? Honest mistake? An attempt at libel? Was it random? --BDD (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Zeran v. America Online, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zeran v. America Online, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]