On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Peter da Silva wrote:
> This is all a reference to the Prodigy case, where it was found that Prodigy
> was responsible for the actions of their SIGops (or whatever Prodigy calls
> them) and that their SIGops were responsible for enforcing the charter of
> their SIG in an evenhanded manner. That doesn't mean they were responsible
> for the entire content of their SIG, just that if they removed an illegal
> post from one poster and left another one up then they were responsible for
> leaving the second one up.
>
> It was *also* a pre-trial decision. I don't know how the trial went.
Ah-ha! I knew it. I've been battling for months to get warez and kiddie
porn and other illegal activities off of the DALnet IRC network, which I
am very actively involved in. But opposition is quite fierce. There are
many idealistic people there who won't tolerate any form of "censorship".
I really wish they'd regulate themselves, because if they do not, the govt
is going to do it for them. One of the most common arguments against
removing these illegal activities is that "if we remove them we have to
guarentee that we remove 100% of it or we become liable for it". I have
been searching for the source of this urban-net-legend, and it seems I
have finally found it. I am bringing this to their attention. Thanks! Can
you give me any more info where I can find the actual documents? Is this
info on the web somewhere? I'm gonna do some altavista searching and see
what I can come up with.
----------
Tracy Reed
http://straylight.connectnet.com
http://www.linux.org - Escape the Gates of Hell
|
|
