Fairly intimidating name you have there, by the way.
On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Enforcement Coordinator (Tracey McCartney) wrote:
> Well, this is the opinion of someone who *has* passed the bar. I don't know
> what kind of scenario you laid out for those attorneys, but this really
> makes no sense. It's like saying, "You know that X is stalking Y with the
> intent to kill him/her, so you have a duty to immediately have X's car towed
> for being in a loading zone."
Good analogy. I also worry about the advice that once you are told of a
problem, you should immediately put up a disclaimer. Courts have
regularly held that you can't disclaim away liability (not that I believe
a list owner would necessarily be liable, morally or legally, for the
off-list activities of his members). Can you imagine: "Caution, this
product is defective and regularly blows up, but we assume no responsibility
for death or dismemberment arising from its use."
My big question is if we assume the duty to kick people from our lists for
alleged illegal off-list activity, does this require us to kick someone if
we are told they are smoking dope, or have beaten their wife, or exceeded
the posted speed limit? The legendary slippery slope. . . . .
I would prefer a disclaimer when people first subscribe that says "I am
not your mother nor the cause of your personal problems. If you have a
problem, take it up with the person who is one of the above."
Just a lay-opinion.