| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
My apologies.
>
> Scott, I'm disappointed in you. Very.
I won't sleep tonight
>
> > 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.
Nope.
>
> 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.
Perhaps that is the problem. I found no firm legal argument, only opinion. I a
seminal post perhaps?
>
> 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'd agree, what Todd did is more important than what you/he calls it.
>
> 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.
If you are worried about Todd standing legally perhaps you should suggest he
seeks legal advise, rather spouting opinion (informed or otherwise)?
> (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.
This is the problem with debates here - conclusions are seldom drawn, "debates"
just die. In ten years time to get anything out of this thread some poor sap
will have to sift through this sprawl... and sigh.
:-
> ) ) 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)
Todds too long to have life savings :-)
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) I hate replying to my own posts and quoting dictionaries, today I shall do both: From: (URL) verb [T] to remove parts of (something to be read, seen, or heard) because it is offensive or considered morally wrong, or because it is secret She (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
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
|
|
|
|
