| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Briefly because I'm at a client site and can't chat as much as I'd like.
> >
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > My working
> > > definition of "editorial control" is to edit or delete all or portions of
> > > something based on its content on non-technical or non-legal grounds.
> >
> > I definitely and without a doubt agree
What, are you TRYING to annoy me here? You've edited Todd's and my words by
trimming away most of the sentence to make it look like I am agreeing with
Todd's definition. Gentle readers, do not be fooled by Scott's action here.
Scott, I'm disappointed in you. Very.
> I would agree with that too. But what I am interested in is what were
> the legal grounds for the censorship?
For what censorship? There was none. Nothing was removed on grounds of
political or moral unacceptability, which is what censorship is.
As to the grounds for the editorial action taken, I'd venture that either you
haven't been paying attention or you are being deliberately disingenious. Go
reread the entire thread. It was pretty clearly explained in mind numbing
detail.
Todd, subsequent to the post I responded to, suggested that we not focus on
whether what he does is editorial control or not, which is a narrow (but
important issue) but rather on the larger aspects of this.
I'm focusing on the narrow issue partly because it's about the only place that
I disagree with Todd w.r.t. this incident, and partly because I think it's
important for legal protective reasons to LUGNET that Todd get it straight in
his mind that what he does is indeed exert an influence and control on what
goes on here. (as he should! It's his property and most of us want him to, and
all of us agreed to abide when we agreed to the T&Cs) Insisting that it's
not "editorial" control is going to potentially cause him harm later, I feel.
Sites only have 2 choices. Either they control things or they don't. This is a
controlled site, using very effective and benign mechanisms, but it's
controlled nevertheless and thus does not have the "common carrier" defense
(in the US legal system, I'm not talking about barbarian states like Canada or
the UK :-) ) against libel and defamation that an uncontrolled site does (if
it still does, under CDA as another poster points out, it may be a moot
distinction).
With that said I'm ready to drop the whole (narrow issue of "editorial
control") thing. It's pretty clear to me that I'm right and Todd's wrong, and
he can ignore it at his peril, but I don't have to belabor the point. (more. :-
) ) After all the world can survive without LUGNET and Todd doesn't really
need his life savings, it's better that lawyers get it. (that's sarcasm)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) My apologies. (...) I won't sleep tonight (...) Nope. (...) Perhaps that is the problem. I found no firm legal argument, only opinion. I a seminal post perhaps? (...) I'd agree, what Todd did is more important than what you/he calls it. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Ooog ooog ooog :) Actually, I believe that Canadian case law is similar to the US on this point. You either exert no control, or you're responsible. <snip> (...) That's _belabour_. Ooog ooog ooog :) Jeff Elliott (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
176 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
