[Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act

[Ray Saintonge]

Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> When a trained attorney says something could cause a lawsuit, generally they are right, and generally the best course of action is to kill the something in question before someone dashes to their friendly neighborhood U.S. Courthouse.
I find that attitude absolutely frightening.  Considerably more 
frightening than the remote prospect of a lawsuit on which it is based.  
An attorney has an obligation to his client to advise him that certain 
activities could lead to a lawsuit.  Nevertheless, statute law is not 
the beginning and end of the law; it is not a cathedral where all must 
bow down in prayer.  Thorough advice would include not only a recitation 
of the statute, but possible defences to a prima facie breach of that 
statute.  It would include advice on the likelihood of prosecution, and 
ways to mitigate that likelihood.  There could be any number of other 
factors that could be raised, based on the specific situation.  He needs 
to bring the client to the point where he can make an informed decision. 

In the end though, it's the client's decision, and that decision depends 
as much on the client's risk tolerance.  Accepting the consequences of 
one's own action does not mean hanging on a lawyer's every word whenever 
a decision needs to be made just to have the convenient excuse, "My 
lawyer said ..." whenever things go wrong.  Such irresponsible people 
might just as well be getting their legal advice from a tarot card reader.

Ec