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

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

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.


> 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.



> But don't take my word for it -- read the links yourself!
> 
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/google_italy_trial
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/18/limewire_copyright_ruling
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling
>>
>>
> I wouldn't endorse wiki-list's unusual interpretation of the cases, as
> summed up here:
> 
> 
>> the days of the internet being a free for all are coming to an end. If
>> websites won't take responsibility, at least to the extent of having a
>> policies in place which are enforced, then others will make it for them,
>>  by disabling access to the site.
>>
> 
> With regard to the Google case, at least, it looks like taking
> responsibility doesn't protect you, and with regard to the libel case,
> moderation increases your risk of liability by undermining your statutory
> exemption.
> 


So your advice is that in the area of pornographic content the 
Foundation is best advised to open the flood gates. Will sticking your 
head in the sand that work for pornographic content alone, or will you 
have to do the same with all content. No selection for encyclopedic 
value or notability, because if any of that goes on one might ask why 
you are deliberately NOT going so for porn?