Damn. I changed my analogy before sending this message and didn't fix it correctly.
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 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