On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Penn Jennings wrote:
> In Jan and Feb many users complain that a list member threatens to kill them
> and they inform you and you do nothing and leave the person on your list.
>
> In Mar a new user joins your list and is threaten by the same user. In Apr
> the user does get killed by this person. The victims family sues you for
> negligence because you took no action. They claim that if you had just
> kicked the person off of the list in Jan or Feb this murder would have never
> occurred. They believe that a person could reasonably expect that the list
> manager would remove dangerous members or warn new members that a danger may
> exist.
> NEGLIGENCE involves carelessness that injures another person. There are 4
> parts to Negligence:
> 1. Duty.
> 2. Breaking a standard of care.
The only standard of care is to try to keep the list running.
> 3. Proximate Cause
> 4. Damages.
> 1. As a list manager you DO HAVE duties and responsibilities. Just ask
> Prodigy. I think that the judge stated that their duty began once they were
Prodigy was filtering e-mail. More specifically, private messages
that Prodigy considered to be inappropriate were deleted, prior
to delivery.
If your list is not moderated, this precedent is inapplicable.
If your list is moderated, it might be applicable, if, and only
if, the list-owner is not the only person who posts to the list.
> aware of the problem or should have been aware. Duties almost always exist
> where danagers exist. In this case you do have a duty to do something.
Also note that said threats were heresay. Not admissable as
evidence.
> 2. The standard of care is based on what the ordinary, reasonable and
> prudent person would do. Such a person WOULD take some action against a
> user in the light of multiple complaints from multiple people about the same
> person.
Would they?
Not true. Take a look at the meow-brigade and the havoc
they play on systems.
Take a look at how easy it is for CyberPromotions to get new
net connections.
Or even take the hypothetical death threat example.
Does the person making the death threat have the means to
carry it out? Does s/he have a stated plan? If either of
those is unknown, the best assumption to make is that the death
threat will not be carried out, but an awareness of what is
going on around one's self is needed.
Statistically, once a death threat has been made, the odds of
it actually being carried out, are less than 1 in 100 000. From
personal experience, I suspect it is closer to 1 in 1 000 000.
> 3. Clearly, if you had kicked the vile user off when the problems first
> occurred the murder would not have occurred. If you had informed the new
Doesn't follow. Subscribers can resubscribe using different
names and email addresses.
> user was threating the kill people he/she may not have joined the list.
Maybe I'm being blase, but death threats are a dime a dozen, and
about as dangerous to the health of an individual, as smoking
a straight camel.
> I would assume that Prodigy had as good attorney as you could get and a
> court stated that list manager ARE responsible for some actions. Why are
> you not?
Because the Prodigy case didn't state that. Reread very
carefully waht it did state, and how it defined those terms.
> The odds of you successfully defending yourself against the law suit above
> is slim I think.
Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No defence needed.
No trial ever comes about.
> The question is not DO you have responsibilities. The question is HOW MUCH
Only if the post is made to the list, does the list manager
have any responsibilities. And even those are limited.
xan
jonathon
grafolog@netcom.com
***********************************************************
Are there any good books about "The War of Northern
Agression"?
Are there any good books about "The War of Southern
Rebellion"?
References:
|
|
