On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@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 the bathroom door. 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
Under UK law they probably could be. Sending a postcard containing deflamotory information under UK law is enough to allow a claim to be made.
-- geni