Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17
 ·Comcast
1 edit | necessary?
I understand their concern that such acts could be committed, and it's legitimate. Their explanation makes it sound like the presence of these clauses in the AUP is benign.
However. Aren't these acts already covered in criminal/civil law? Impersonation, scamming, or "intentionally spreading inaccurate information" (i.e. slander/libel) are criminal/civil offenses already. Do they really need to repeat this in the AUP? It seems unnecessary if that is their concern.
--
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Save American Soccer - Stop the MLS! |
|
BillTager
join:2000-09-20
Charlotte, NC
| said by Sabre  :...Aren't these acts already covered in criminal law? Impersonation, scamming, or "intentionally spreading inaccurate information" (i.e. slander/libel) are criminal offenses already. Do they really need to repeat this in the AUP? It seems unnecessary if that is their concern. I'm no law expert, but I imagine that the reason they feel it is necessary is because criminal punishments resulting from law violations would differ greatly from civil penalties incurred from a lawsuit brought by Verizon for breach of contract.
It basically gives them the tool to sue the pants off off offenders in addition to whatever criminal sanctions are imposed.
Remember OJ?
--
Praise be to my Cadillac |
|
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR | reply to Sabre
Slander and libel are civil offenses, not criminal offenses. The rest are criminal offenses however. |
|
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | Oops. Thanks for the correction. Fixed. |
|
