Let's start with the potential liability of the women who are the information sources - for the site's liability, if any exists, would derive from the women's liability.

Some of the women's comments will not count as factual, however - and thus cannot be defamatory, even if they end up being quite harmful to their target. A statement an ex-boyfriend is a "jerk," for instance, cannot be the basis for a libel suit, even if he is a model of caring and compassion.

Most significantly for the site's purposes, allegations of "cheating" may end up being a matter of opinion: If a man had dinner alone with another woman, was he "cheating"? Some would think so; some would think not.

But allegations of "infidelity" are more specific, and more easily disprovable - though disproving them may involve, for the man, the painful revelation of private information in the context of civil discovery. It's always difficult and dangerous to try to prove one's purity, for it requires the proof of a negative, as well as delving into private matters. For instance, if a woman had claimed on the website that her ex cheated with another woman, and the ex sued, then both the ex and the "other woman" might separately receive discovery requests asking them to, under oath, chronicle their sex lives during the relevant periods of time.: It might consist of bank records, or public court records.

But what if the statements are true, and the men feel their privacy has been violated? After all, sexual conduct is generally thought of as private.

In an earlier column , I examined whether a man could successfully sue a woman - Jessica Cutler, whose nom de plume was Washingtonienne -- who'd spilled details of their sexual interactions in her blog. As I noted there, privacy claims are usually judged under the law of the state in which the plaintiff resides - but most states do not allow invasion of privacy suits to be based upon information that is of "legitimate public concern," and require the disclosure to be "highly offensive."

Whether these legal tests are satisfied will probably vary from posting to posting. Including gratuitous sexual details could render a posting "highly offensive"; simply truthfully labeling an ex a cheater might not count. Information might be deemed to be of "public concern" if, for instance, a man was hiding a college reprimand for date rape; but not if, say, the man was deemed to have poor hygiene.

There's one final pitfall: Women should make sure they have the copyright for the photos they post, or that the photos are mug shots (for which the real copyright holder, the government, will never sue). If the photo was taken by a friend of the man, that friend could have a meritorious copyright infringement suit against the woman.

"To post a cheating man to our easy-to-use search engine, tell us about him by sending an e-mail to info@dontdatehimgirl.com! Give us his name, age, and tell us where he lives as well. If you have a photograph, we'll post that, too! By e-mailing DontDateHimGirl.com a request to post a cheater, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy."

Somewhat ironically, the Privacy Policy is intended to protect the women posting, not the men whose information is posted. The Terms of Use , however, do address the potential privacy and defamation issues - but not very effectively.

For one thing, the Terms of Use purport to make the user "solely responsible" for what she sends to the site. But it's the law, not the site, that determines who's liable, so this language is ineffective.

For another thing, while the Terms of Use make the user promise not to post, among other kinds of illegal material, defamatory or privacy-infringing material, it does not impose any penalty on users who do so, beyond reserving the right to remove postings. It would be smarter if the site, for instance, made each user promise to bear attorney's fees if the site were successfully sued on the basis of her posting.

In sum, the site has failed to optimize its legal position vis-à-vis users. But, more seriously, it has also failed to optimize its legal position vis-à-vis potential plaintiffs.

Dontdatehimgirl.com takes advantage of its ability to edit postings, alerting users that it may do so. Nevertheless, it's not clear whether Dontdatehimgirl.com falls within the statute's protection, because it has assumed a mixed role of host and author. It is the entity actually doing the posting.

Recall that the instructions tell women to "tell us about [a cheating man] by sending an e-mail," and promise that the site will then post the information. Other areas of the site suggest that women may also post information about cheaters directly, without the site's acting as an intermediary. It would be much safer, legally, for the site, if everything were automatic, and nothing was funneled, before posting, through emails read by those who run the site.

From a legal perspective, in other words, the site would be well-advised to consistently, employ the kind of automatized system Congress meant to protect when it passed the immunity - and to just let users post directly. This is a limited immunity, one that, as I discussed in my prior column , affords websites much better protection from defamation and privacy suits than traditional publishers enjoy. It is intended to encourage editing, not to give sites a free pass on liability.

Julie Hilden, a FindLaw columnist, graduated from Yale Law School in 1992. She practiced First Amendment law at the D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1996-99. Hilden is also a novelist. In reviewing Hilden's novel, 3 , Kirkus Reviews praised Hilden's "rather uncanny abilities," and Counterpunch called it "a must read.... a work of art." Hilden's website, www.juliehilden.com , includes free MP3 and text downloads of the novel's first chapter.

This is cache, read story here