In a message dated 3/31/2008 7:33:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tonysidaway@gmail.com writes:
Yeah, basically we should not be handing hate speech, personal attacks, etc, that we have deleted to anyone. That's republishing and would expose us to secondary liability if there are legal problems.>>
------------------- This is a doubtful proposition. The concept of secondary liability has been used for a wide variety of issues, when it's actually a very narrow concept. To wit, I have to know that what I write is false and defamatory because my own underlying sources actually state that it is false and defamatory, and I have to publish it regardless of that knowledge.
That is very narrow, it would not imho apply to any of our articles.
Will
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolh...)
On 31/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2008 7:33:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysidaway@gmail.com writes:
Yeah, basically we should not be handing hate speech, personal attacks, etc, that we have deleted to anyone. That's republishing and would expose us to secondary liability if there are legal problems.>>
This is a doubtful proposition. The concept of secondary liability has been used for a wide variety of issues, when it's actually a very narrow concept. To wit, I have to know that what I write is false and defamatory because my own underlying sources actually state that it is false and defamatory, and I have to publish it regardless of that knowledge.
That is very narrow, it would not imho apply to any of our articles.
Will
Under US law perhaps. UK law differs on this point.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:53 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2008 7:33:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysidaway@gmail.com writes:
Yeah, basically we should not be handing hate speech, personal attacks, etc, that we have deleted to anyone. That's republishing and would expose us to secondary liability if there are legal problems.>>
This is a doubtful proposition. The concept of secondary liability has been used for a wide variety of issues, when it's actually a very narrow concept. To wit, I have to know that what I write is false and defamatory because my own underlying sources actually state that it is false and defamatory, and I have to publish it regardless of that knowledge.
That is very narrow, it would not imho apply to any of our articles.
Will
I'm sure the foundation's position would be the usual "You're on your own if you do this", but admins shouldn't be providing copies of "problematic" articles. Just things deleted as "non-notable" or "gibberish" or "spam".
WilyD