how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to seropith
Re: Admirable thought... said by seropith:The offender is responsible for his or her own actions. The provider holds liability if they can reasonably do something to prevent the crime on their service, but fail to do so. The keyword for the provider is "reasonably". Technical measure are reasonable. Employees to physical monitor every web transaction would not be reasonable and not very easily done. Just as an example. Cell phone and wireless providers, have NO such liability for content flowing across their networks. Inspection of any content is an invasion of privacy, let alone wholesale filtering of all content. Moreover, any filtering/inspection would open them up to liability where they currently have none.
The quickest and easiest way to identify and eliminate abhorrent social practices is to have a free and open society with policies against, and criminal sanctions for, practices universally deemed damaging and unacceptable. Violators may be more easily detected and investigated with regard to their activities/communications if their communications are not prohibited and driven underground.
The use of warrants for "wiretaps" would be the best focus for law enforcement, and protective of the privacy rights of the law abiding citizen. | |
seropithRouPremium
join:2002-11-12
El Paso, TX | You really should do your research before you post.
Lets look at case trend on libel -
Take New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254; where the courts ruled, had NYT known the information was false, they would have been liable. And thats just libel, so we see the trend on case law for service providers and publishers.
Now, for the related subject of k-porn, lets look at the USC.
For k-porn 42 USC 13032 requires services providers to report, should they have knowledge. If they do not report and they have knowledge, they are liable. Although they do not have to proactively monitor. | |
| said by seropith:You really should do your research before you post. HUH!
said by seropith:Lets look at case trend on libel - Take New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254; where the courts ruled, had NYT known the information was false, they would have been liable. And thats just libel, so we see the trend on case law for service providers and publishers. WTF is this case about? Your statement has no discernible, and/or insufficient, context to have any relevance to the discussion.
said by seropith:Now, for the related subject of k-porn, lets look at the USC. For k-porn 42 USC 13032 requires services providers to report, should they have knowledge. If they do not report and they have knowledge, they are liable. Although they do not have to proactively monitor. You don't have the vaguest clue about what you're posting! Or, you simply have difficulty with reading comprehension. You confirmed every point I made:
Service providers have no liability for content passing over their networks, UNLESS they undertake to intercept, inspect, or censor. THEN, they would have a BIG problem; they would become liable for all content, discovered by them or not. Yes, if they become aware of illegal activity and fail to take action, they are liable. However, ignorance is bliss when it comes to interfering with the flow of communications in a relatively free society. | |
seropithRouPremium
join:2002-11-12
El Paso, TX | I apologize for telling you to do research. That was incredibly offensive.
However,
I believe the data I posted on case trend should be applied in a general sense. The specific second part of my post related to the topic at hand in a specific sense. If the providers are aware there is an issue, applying technical solutions is proper. | |
|
