>From: Penn Jennings <jennings@cyberca.com>
>Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 07:56:20 -0500
>In the example the List manager is made aware that a very serious threat
>exists on his. He take no action. This allows the threat to continue to exist.
You seem to be going out of your way to fail to see the point all the rest of
us are trying to make.
There is no dispute in this matter: A list owner (let's use the correct term)
can add or delete a user for valid or capricious reasons. You have made no
guarantee to your list members that you have screened potential members for
psychotic behavior, or that you are keeping their e-mail address private.
But, you continue to make the claim that somehow, if you only unsubscribe this
psychotic person from the list, that you have PROTECTED your current and future
list members from this person.
I say to you, that rather than limiting your exposure to potential liability,
you have INCREASED it. You have now made a claim that you cannot back up.
The only prudent action to take in this circumstance is to tell the person who
received the threat the truth, that you are in no position to help him. It is
up to the person who received the threat to take appropriate action. You may
suggest to him what that course of action is, but you cannot take it for him.
But, you CANNOT, under any circumstances, tell him that you can PROTECT him
from harm.
Again, the person who received the threat should make a police report. If it is
serious enough, he may wish to file a protection order, or hide. If he wishes
to be free from harassing e-mail, he should filter it.
>If someone joins the AFTER the threat was identified and is damaged by this
>threat you may be held partially responsible because the damage was
>foreseeable AND avoidable.
The only way you could be held responsible was if it could be established that
you controlled this person, or that you claimed to control this person.
>A ordinary, reasonable prudent does not do NOTHING when they are notified that
>a threat exists and they are in charge. As the list manager you would have to
>something. You CAN argue about what to though.
No. The person who receive the threat, not the list owner, is responsible for
taking the action. You are NOT in charge of the threatener.
>Wait let me get this right. You don't mind being sued. It might do like this.
>ATTORENY: Are you the list manager?
>YOU: Yes
>ATTORNEY: Are you in charge, do you make management and operation decisions?
>YOU: Yes
>ATTORNEY: Have you ever removed users from your list for any reason?
>YOU: Yes
>ATTORNEY: Did several users tell you "Bob Dole" was going kill them?
>YOU: Sure, many times.
>ATTORNEY: What did you do about that?
>YOU: Nothing
WRONG. You wouldn't answer. Your attorney would leap up and say, "Objection,
your Honor! Plaintiff has failed to lay a proper foundation for this line of
questioning." The court would sustain the objection. And, the following
question would not be asked.
>ATTORNEY: Why?
>YOU: Hey, why should I?
Let's take this the other way. Suppose you removed the psychotic from your
list. Suppose he killed someone he had threatened anyway. This would not
insulate you from defending against a claim that you are not an expert in
psychosis and that your actions provoked him. In America, anyone could make a
claim against anyone else, no matter how ridiculous.
>Jenny Jones didn't kill anyone, however, the jury in criminal trial thought
>that should have taken more steps to protect her guests and said so. How
>much do you think it will cost her?
This is an entirely different circumstance. She was defending herself against a
claim that she humiliated a guest, thus provoking him into killing another
guest. As the hypothetical list owner, were you notified that a psychotic
person was making threats, and did you encourage him to follow through?
References:
|
|
