ISP/Craiglist - Assignment Example

The plaintiff Immunomedics  Inc has a right to sue the ISP in order for the court to order an investigation into the conduct of the ISP employees. Under the law, the employer is liable for the negligence of not supervising employees.  A good example is Dickinson v. Edwards, the court ruled that the employer was liable for the accident caused by the employee due to intoxication after a company banquet (Constance E. Bagley, 2010).

Fiduciary duties are the relationship between the employer as principal and the employee and have a duty to disclose all information to enable the employee to perform his task, and employers are bounded by the actions of the employees (Gerald R. Ferrera, 2012). Thus the employees of ISP were operating within the parameters of the company and as they responded in the case they are obliged to defend themselves on limited tort liability.

Under the law, if an employee is involved in a criminal act, the plaintiff (Immunomedics) can sue responded (ISP) for neglecting hiring and retention but the plaintiff must prove that the ISP knew the conduct of the employee who allowed poster on the chat room (Nolo, 2014), further under the law during hiring a tech employee completing Form I-9 to determine the employee eligibility and Form SS-8 to show the behavior of the worker to be employed. Thus the liability lies on ISP to provide the details of the pseudonym name and IP address but it must be authorized by the courts.

Craigslist is not liable for the content distributed on its website.

Under Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) section 512(C ) provides for safe-harbor content posted on the Craiglist blog or website by a user, due to the fact that employees of Craiglist did not have actual knowledge of the content posted. If they were informed of the damaging, discriminatory content on their blog they could have immediately removed failure to which they are liable. The lawyer instituting the case did not inform Craiglist about the contents and they fail to remove it (Digital Media Law Project, 2012).

All these acts read together with the Fair Housing Act (FHA), prove that Craiglist did not publish discriminatory content on their blog, it was done by a third party, a user.