Actually the forum would be protected by Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act which basically says that a website with user submitted information (posts) is not considered to be the publisher of such information.
The person who actually posts information (posts a post) is liable (when liability is appropriate) for anything they publish (post).
Any lawyer will tell you that doesn't hold up in court, because it usually doesnt.
Why don't you give some examples of cases when this did not hold up in court?
it won't hold up for a second in court against a lawyer worth their salt, and lets face it, in these types of cases, the prosecuting attorney is always worth their salt.
You asked for proof, so here you go.
One of the most famous cases in internet history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial#.22King_Kong.22_defenseSection 230 does not provide protection against a site breaking IP (intellectual property) law, which is what copyright law is.
Section 230 doesn't matter. EU directive 2000/31/EC was over ruled in court already, setting a precendence for prosecuting cases in relation to anti-trust, such as a forum failing to remove objectionable content within a reasonable time frame. The defense may try to hide under 230, but there are any number of laws that can be used to sidestep that protection. study consumer fraud law, and realize that this forum is absolutely liable for its content. always has been, and always will be. The forum is used to facilitate monetary trades, and thus is open to more scrutiny.