How to Unmask the Internet's Vilest Characters
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
There are plenty of things that could be done that don't require the removing the CDA. If websites are liable for user-generated content, then liability will ensure that we cannot have user-generated content at all. Google, for example, has a specific process for you to remove this sort of thing:
http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...
More generally, you can also get a court order declaring something unlawful, then go here:
http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr...
But as they point out, it doesn't do much unless you get to the root of the problem. Find the person who posted it.
Lastly, way to go NYTimes. I had never heard of that porn site before, but now everyone on the internet can look up that site and that post, making your use of an alias meaningless. Are you really on her side, or were you trying to trigger the Streisand effect?
The real internet villains are the ones who need no provocation, and go after people far innocenter than people who let their boyfriend take nude pictures. Like what Anon did with the Sony exec families, that (didn't by far) could have gone horribly wrong if a internet-only psycho got enough of that information.
The people who went on to post the photos and her personal info are equally vile. I can think of no excuse for that behavior at all.
You're blaming the victim here, and it's wrong. This woman was manipulated and exploited, and she is absolutely innocent in this sad tale.
Besides, just because someone let someone else get a hold of personal or confidential information does not give them the right to share it with the world.