Damn. I changed my analogy before sending this message and didn't fix
it correctly.
On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A similar argument applies to defamation. The onus is
on me, as
custodian of my own post, to demonstrate that I do not recklessly
dispose of it. Whilst I shouldn't be expected to take responsibility
for any and every illegal act that is perpetrated by my servants, once
I become aware that such an act may take place, I should take
reasonable steps to prevent it. The problem is the word "reasonable".
If a defamatory statement is published, a plaintiff may well have an
apprehension that this is because I have been reckless, even if I
haven't, and much time and money may be spent by both sides in
deciding the issue.
So someone goes to a community corkboard in an apartment building and
writes "John Heybobarebob is gay" on a corkboard message. Then the
owner of the apartment building sees the defamatory statement, takes
down the message, and stores it in a closet with a bunch of other
removed messages. Then a janitor goes into to the closet, takes the
message, and creates photocopies which she proceeds to hand out to
people.
You think the building owner can be sued?
I don't get it.
Anthony