Hinderaker’s name. Plaintiffs also assert that Purdy is in contempt because statements falsely attributed to Hinderaker appeared on a dis cussion board on a web site controlled by-Purdy. These statements created the impression that Hinderaker supports Purdy’s actions. Purdy asserts that he does not know who posts messages on his message boards and that Plaintiffs cannot prove who posted the Hinderaker comment. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Purdy posted the Hinderaker statements on his bulletin board. Under the Communications Decency Act, “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information con 4, 31 P.3d 37, 41 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Pur-dy is immune from defamation or
holding that amazoncom was immune from liability for negative comments posted on its web site because as an interactive web site operator it was a provider of interactive computer services and although it could edit postings it was not an information content provider holding that it may not holding site of accident without more was not a suspicious place holding that it is not holding plaintiffs public nuisance claim was barred by the economic loss rule because it wasnt actually a landowner of the site and thus there was no allegation of harm to any property