SENSITIZE ©

the_leander wrote:The Electronic Frontier Foundation seems to think so, based on its reaction to a decision last week absolving Craigslist.com from liability for discriminatory housing postings.

Huh, you might ask? The EFF's side won (gasp!), and they're still bitching? Indeed they are, but for potentially good cause.

I'm going to read this more closely tomorrow Alan. Exhausted right now. Thanks for posting it mate ...

the_leander wrote:The Electronic Frontier Foundation seems to think so, based on its reaction to a decision last week absolving Craigslist.com from liability for discriminatory housing postings.

Huh, you might ask? The EFF's side won (gasp!), and they're still bitching? Indeed they are, but for potentially good cause.

Hi Alan.

I'm a bit confused by this one. Firstly, it appears to be from an American source, although I appreciate that when it comes to the internet, global boundaries may be different.

If I'm reading this correctly then it looks like civil liberty is being limited. My reasons for saying this stems from this section of the post you have linked us to above:-

EFF article on The Register courtesy of the_leander wrote: Under the district court's interpretation of Section 230, states can now require sites to filter out content, mandate take-downs of any content that a user claims is defamatory or violates the right to privacy, or do anything else that doesn't revolve around an element of publication. Liability in these cases would result from the sites' failure to protect the rights of others before or after publication, and not from the actual publication itself.

I've underlined the bit that concerns me. Sensitize is part of the www.upstaterenegadeproductions.com network which is an independent media source and new media publishing point online. I would assume therefore every right as a participant on this network and as a published freelance journalist with several articles in print, to carry out electronic / new media exposé journalism as part of my continued career. I would also expect that my source materials and research were free of any interference from people I may be exposing. Does all of this refer only to members of the public with standard, non - media / non - commercial websites? Or, can it adversely affect my continued work and/or career opportunities?

Aren't all websites a form of media in one way or another in that people build and then upload materials such as film, images, music or writing to them? It seems a bit much that anyone's right to be expressive online can be limited or restricted and would fly in the face of a great many peoples expectations of the internet as we progress electronically.

Thanks for posting this Alan...

Nice to see the lawyers all pulling in the same direction...............

It seems to me that this ruling says something different.

Hmmmmm. Combine the two rulings and what you are left with is that websites are free from legal action for libels posted on them unless they upset the US government. Am I right?

spacecadet wrote:Nice to see the lawyers all pulling in the same direction...............

Absolutely feckin' priceless ain't it?

spacecadet wrote:It seems to me that this ruling says something different.

Excellent bit of research Dave mate ... Nicely delivered too... It would indeed look as though there are conflicts of ethics and opinion.

spacecadet wrote:Hmmmmm. Combine the two rulings and what you are left with is that websites are free from legal action for libels posted on them unless they upset the US government. Am I right?

Looks like you are right Dave. I still think everyone working at The Pentagon, The White House and The US Senate are complete retards though.

I'll go further.

They're a collective bunch of Ted Haggard wannabes who 'yank' themselves off over pictures of Jesus. They'll need to provide me proof that they don't before I consider changing this long-held belief...

Lugh wrote: They're a collective bunch of Ted Haggard wannabes who 'yank' themselves off over pictures of Jesus. They'll need to provide me proof that they don't before I consider changing this long-held belief...

I'm sure I've said it here before. Fundamentalist Muslims concern me, but fudamentalist Christians scare me sh*tless.

spacecadet wrote:
I'm sure I've said it here before. Fundamentalist Muslims concern me, but fudamentalist Christians scare me sh*tless.

Yeah, and they're crap in bed..!