To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.termsOpen lugnet.admin.terms in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Terms of Use / 607
606  |  608
Subject: 
Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.terms
Date: 
Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:47:15 GMT
Viewed: 
4871 times
  
In lugnet.admin.terms, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
   I guess I’m okay with Rene’s description, but as Didier said, this will come down to theory vs practice. I’m sure there would be no problem with something like a battle scene.

You’re right, that’s not an issue, NFW.

   Let’s jump straight to the hard cases, then. What does this new version of the ToU say about discussions of things like Block Death (hmm, the url is dead - does this site still exist?)

I guess I know it, one could consider it as “bad taste”, but as far as I remember, it was made too simple to be seriously glorifying violence.

   or the art of Zbigniew Libera.

It launched a discussion, but definitive is provoking art. At least it was elevating to an art, so no big deal.

   some people have built MOCs based on contemporary events as sort of political commentary. Could someone build an Abu Ghraib MOC similar to the Zbigniew creations as some sort of comment on the current debate in the US of the treatment of prisoners accused of terrorism?

He/she could do so and it would be absolutely fine with the ToU.

I fear, that either my translation of what is called “glorifying violence” in German law was not clear enough, or the two words “glorifying violence” per se are not good enough by half describing the meaning of the german analogy “gewaltverherrlichend”. If someone is “gewaltverherrlichend” (glorifying violence), he’s showing violence very detailed AND he’s showing it much more extensive as necessary AND he’s showing it solely for amusement AND at the same time he sickly belittles it - all told at once. And this is hard to accomplish for someone who’s not addle-brained.

   One question, Rene. On Classic-Castle we simply ban members under 13 years old. Under our understanding, this helps us to avoid certain restrictions under U.S. law protecting minors. Would German law afford a similar solution? That is, do the restrictions you list affect all sites hosted in Germany, or only those with underage members?

For the same restrictions as in LUGNET’s ToU:

The following restrictions affect all sites hosted in Germany:
to not provide s.th. which is...
...unlawful, or
...threatening (regarding a particular person), or
...abusive (regarding a particular person), or
...libelous (regarding a particular person), or
...defamatory (regarding a particular person), or
...racist

The following restrictions affect all sites, that cannot ensure that visitors are at least 18 years old:
to not provide s.th. which is...
...obscene, or
...pornographic, or
...violence glorifying

These aren’t essential restrictions for German sites:
no vulgar or profane material (but of course, a site-owner can decide to forbid it)

As for the need to ban kids under a certain age from visiting a site: No, we don’t have to do so. In Germany, we have something which is called “Aufsichtspflicht” = Parent has custody of child. So that’s not my business :-)

I hope this clarified things a bit,
Leg Godt!
Rene



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
 
(...) Hey, I guess I'm okay with Rene's description, but as Didier said, this will come down to theory vs practice. I'm sure there would be no problem with something (URL) a battle scene>. Almost everthing I could imagine would fall into this realm. (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)

23 Messages in This Thread:








Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR