Many gay men have complained that others have outed them on a web site or within a chat room. Others complain that they see derogatory comments about themselves. In one case, someone created a fake profile and listed another person’s phone and address and indicated that the person liked to be raped by someone who breaks into his house.

Originally Internet service providers (ISP) were treated like a newspaper publisher. If someone posted something defamatory on a web site, the ISP could be held liable for the defamation. But that changed when Congress passed the Communications Decency Act in 1996. The Act specifically grants immunity to ISPs for just about anything said on their sites.

Congress was concerned that ISPs might face limitless liability and that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to police a site all the time. Imagine having to police the hundreds of chat rooms available on America Online. It’s quite impossible.

Congress likened ISPs to the telephone company. Imagine if SBC was liable each time someone uttered something slanderous in a telephone conversation.

Attorneys argued against the broad immunity, arguing that ISPs were getting an advantage that no print publisher has ever received. But, in print publishing, the publisher reviews the copy before it is published; there is editorial control. Newspapers do not have to print anything they don’t want to.

So the Internet lies somewhere between the telephone company (no liability) and the newspaper (potential liability). And this is a problem for people who have had data revealed about them on the Internet, especially data about sexual orientation.

For example, some web site operators have web sites geared for high school students. Students freely access the sites and post comments about students at school. Not surprisingly, the most common slur is that a certain boy is a “fag” or a girl is a “dyke.”

When the victim of the slur discovers it, he or she has to contact the web site and ask for its removal.

Ironically, when a web site exercises more editorial control over a site — such as checking into chat rooms, looking at what people are saying — the ISP could incur liability. So ISPs decided to keep their hands off editorial control over chat rooms.

Congress resolved this by simply making ISPs immune from any liability for what others post in chat rooms.

Some of the results of the law are hard to take. For example, actress Chase Masterson, who has appeared as Leeta on “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,” discovered that someone had posted a fake profile for her on Matchmaker.com. The profile included her home address, telephone number and text indicating that she sought a dominant man with a strong sexual appetite.

Masterson received unwanted calls and e-mails.

When she discovered the cause of the unwanted suitors, she contacted Matchmaker.com and asked them to remove the phony profile, which they eventually did. But in the meantime, she told the Los Angeles Times that she received a note from someone threatening to stalk and rape her and kill her son.

Masterson sued the owner of Matchmaker.com, Terra Lycos, for invasion of privacy and defamation.

The case reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that “as long as third party willingly provides the essential published content, the ISP receives full immunity regardless of the specific editing or selection process.”

Keep in mind that the person who posts defamatory information or information that invades one’s privacy is liable for the data. The problem is, of course, tracking down the source of the data.

As it stands now, the ISP will not reveal the name of the person who makes such a posting. This requires a court order, also known as a subpoena. So the process involves hiring a lawyer and paying court costs. In short, it’s not an easy process to go through.

Congress needs to amend the Act so that victims of defamation and invasion of privacy have some meaningful recourse. ISPs should enjoy general immunity, but, once a victim notifies an ISP of damaging data on the site, the ISP should have a duty to take reasonable steps within a reasonable amount of time to remove the offending information. Without imposing some degree of liability, ISPs may have no incentive to remove data. In fact, the more raunchy the facts or photos, the more likely the site will draw hits (and that could mean increased revenues for the site).