Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:26:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
293 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [...]
> > You either let everything pass through unimpeded by all who appear here, no
> > matter what they do or say, or you're exercising editorial control. There
> > aren't any other choices, legally. The mechanism is not relevant.
> > [...]
>
> That is in fact what happens here. Everything passes through unimpeded.
> However, if, after the fact, something has to be removed for legal reasons,
> how is that considered having exercised editorial control? (That is a
> facetious question.)
>
> > [...]
> > I strongly prefer that you continue to do what you do (in the way that you
> > do it, your chosen mechanisms are friendly and effective) rather than let
> > things through unimpeded. We tried that, it's called RTL.
>
> I agree, and don't think there's ever a reason to change the guidelines.
> I just have a major beef with the phrase "editorial control" being tossed
> around like that.
This may be a dead horse, but I'm just reading this thread now. I think
part of the muddiness is that Larry is talking from the side of how the
law will be applied. A word can have a very different meaning in court
than in Webster's (or whatever your favorite dictionary is). This fact
actually suggests that Clinton's quibbling about the definitions of
words in court is not actually so ridiculous as one might think (though
he probably stretched the line quite a bit). What Larry (and myself) are
trying to encourage you to do is understand as clearly as possible the
_legal_ ramifications of the policies of Lugnet. I frankly don't care
whether you call those policies editorial control or not (though I would
point out that by your definitions, you do exercise editorial control in
the set database, it is NOT open for any Lugnet user to add and modify
data, they must submit the data to you by e-mail or
lugnet.admin.database, or other chanels).
I would also note that you should be prepared to not only remove certain
posts from access, but to actually completely wipe them. TLC would be
justified in the case of the 2001 set information to request that you go
to every effort to make sure that there is no way someone could get that
information from a computer which you own or control the content of (I
don't know if a court has ever required someone to do a government
approved security wipe of information from a computer, but I certainly
would support such a decision if it was deemed necessary).
And I'll repeat the mantra - please seek counsel from a lawyer about
your policies. I don't want to see Lugnet get wiped out by a slip (and
if you want an idea of the measures that the government is capable of
applying, even if misguided, in trying to enforce a court order, look
into the situation with Steve Jackson Games and the Secret Service -
even though they eventually won damages in court, information was
irrevocably lost and there was a significant disruption in the service
they gave to their customers and fans).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) That is in fact what happens here. Everything passes through unimpeded. However, if, after the fact, something has to be removed for legal reasons, how is that considered having exercised editorial control? (That is a facetious question.) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
