Subject:
|
Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:17:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
743 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
<snip>
> > 3. If that doesn't produce results within a reasonable amount of time, post
> > a public statement noting the objection and requiring that objectionable
> > information be forcibly expunged from the system. Also send a copy of this
> > via email to system the admin (me). Note: Any private e-mail received • which
> > differs from a public message will be posted publicly as part of the paper
> > trail. If the e-mail contains a request not to post the message publicly,
> > either please don't send it, or expect it to be disregarded. • <snip>
> Just to be clear, the above are _suggestions_ to LEGO as to how to handle
> events like this in the future. They do not represent or define LUGNET site
> policy. Thus, "within a reasonable amount of time" is up to LEGO to decide.
> It might, in cases (like this one, for example), make sense for them to do
> #3 first, and then a whole bunch of #1's. #5 is kinda obvious, if something
> gets that far, which it most probably never would, but I threw it in for
> completeness.
Sorry I missed the part about being suggestions to TLC. I do still see some
problem with #3. I'm not sure what all the ramifications of publishing a
private communication when public communication has been made. I think your
goal here is to make it clear that TLC isn't exerting any backhanded pressure
on you (by requiring them to be up front about their request). I do still see
possibility that they might want to communicate more detail to you in private
than they want to detail publicly. If you are going to force them to say
everything publicly, you may be more likely to force them to court action.
To construct an example, lets say I was going to hold a meeting at my mom's
house, and asked people to e-mail me for directions or somesuch. Then someone
posts the directions, and for urgency, I decide to post publicly "please do
not propagate the directions to our meeting place." I also at the same time
send e-mail to you explaining that I need to have the directions removed
because my mom values her privacy, including the privacy to not have her
address publicly announced. I am providing this extra detail to you to clarify
the request so you can understand the seriousness (i.e. were not just dealing
with MY privacy, but someone else's who isn't even connected with Lugnet). If
you post this e-mail publicly, you are creating an additional violation of my
mom's privacy. Now of course, in all of this, one might question why I'm
holding the meeting at my mom's place, but I don't think that that negates her
right to privacy. I also realize TLC is different, and that they really
shouldn't need to communicate additional private information to justify a
request, but you are in effect setting policy with #3 (because you're stating
actions you will take under certain circumstances), it is best that that
policy be as clear as possible, and apply as broadly as possible or be clearly
limited in who it applies to (i.e. if you intend #3 to ONLY be how you handle
TLC communications, and any other communications will be dealt with on their
own merits, then that's cool, perhaps this is indeed what you intended since
there is significance to your wanting to make it clear just what TLC is
requesting of you in these situations).
However, with all of this said, I still strongly reccomend you seek counsel
from a lawyer. It is clear that you will continually have to deal with
situations where innapropriate material gets posted, and that you will have to
respond to direct requests to remove that material. If you don't handle these
requests consistently, that is where you will really open yourself up to
lawsuits.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| (...) (Replying to my own post) Just to be clear, the above are _suggestions_ to LEGO as to how to handle events like this in the future. They do not represent or define LUGNET site policy. Thus, "within a reasonable amount of time" is up to LEGO to (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
