buckworks
msg:4195570 | 1:59 pm on Sep 2, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| may sue the third-party user |
|
Problem: that's only possible when the identity of said third-party user is known, and only practical said third-party user lives within reach of applicable laws.
|
maximillianos
msg:4195601 | 3:04 pm on Sep 2, 2010 (gmt 0) |
| Problem: that's only possible when the identity of said third-party user is known, and only practical said third-party user lives within reach of applicable laws. |
|
Correct, as is the case with any crime.
|
Sgt_Kickaxe
msg:4195841 | 11:48 pm on Sep 2, 2010 (gmt 0) |
Freedom of speech can be a bummer huh. You can't shut people up by going after the medium they use :-)
Silly lawsuit.
|
hutcheson
msg:4196141 | 4:37 pm on Sep 3, 2010 (gmt 0) |
There will never be a shortage of people wanting to use whatever coercive force is within reach, to suppress any voice they don't approve. But it's only the most evil people (medieval churchmen, communists, RIAA goons) that want to suppress entire technologies and social arrangements which MIGHT be used by someone they wouldn't approve.
In related news, civil engineering firm accused of facilitating drive-by shootings.
|
moTi
msg:4196634 | 8:54 pm on Sep 4, 2010 (gmt 0) |
ok, so according to u.s. legislation, every website with an input field is an "interactive computer service" that's free from liability for that content, right?
|
tangor
msg:4196659 | 10:27 pm on Sep 4, 2010 (gmt 0) |
There are still caveats to the ruling... there remains in common law "intent" and "knowledge", and "abet" which if can be proved, will make the content provider liable. This ruling is NOT a get out of jail free card...
|
|
