[Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>   
>> wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>>
>> Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of
>>     
>>> steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
>>> its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel.
>>>
>>>       
>> It helps to actually read the stories and understand the cases. The Google
>> execs were found guilty even though they quickly responded to a complaints
>> and removed the offending video. In other words, they didn't make the
>> "nobody is home" argument.
>>
>> Limewire is a contributory-infringement case that has nothing to do with
>> publisher liability. (Limewire distributed software.)
>>
>>     
>
> The point being made is that courts are taking a narrow reading of the 
> exemptions. At issue is going to be whether Congress having passed 2257 
> did they intend for the safe-harbor exemptions to allow an organization 
> to evade those regulations simply by allowing anonymous users to upload 
> pornographic content.
>   
I doubt you can actually tie together in a reasonable fashion
the reading of US congress passed laws and what passes for
juridifical sillyness internationally (and the US has no cause
to smirk in this respect!!) I have previously thought the
idea of moving the servers out from the US as just a
joke, on the grounds that the US courts don't as a rule
tend to swerve towards slapstick-comedy in applying laws.

>
>   
>> And the blog owner actually hasn't been found liable for user-submitted
>> libel in the Register story published. As the story is reported, the blog
>> owner has merely been told that moderation of content runs the risk of
>> *creating* liability by removing the exemptions for mere hosts. The decision
>> is regarding a pre-trial motion. In other words, the case has precisely the
>> opposite meaning of what wiki-list writes here, since it focuses on the
>> risks of moderation, not the risks of non-moderation.
>>
>>     
>
>
> The foundation or the site admins do moderate. The foundation or they DO 
> have the power, to delete submissions that are considered  non 
> encyclopedic, trolling, libelous and etc. There is constant moderation 
> on by or on behalf of the foundation. If not teh Foundation then the 
> admins have responsibility. The foundation is not acting simply as a 
> hosting site that merely stores user submitted data. It is not godaddy, 
> it is not wordpress, it is not even YouTube.
>
>
>   
Again, this argument fails the "laugh test". Sure there might
in a completely perversely constructed universe be a totally
idiotic argument that every editor of wikipedia is in some
-- complete failure of parody here -- sense "employed" by
the foundation, because they are so richly rewarded for their
labours.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen