Posted by Lou Pilder on August 24, 2014, at 11:57:56 [reposted on August 26, 2014, at 13:28:43 | original URL]
In reply to Lou's warning-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-wrat, posted by Lou Pilder on August 24, 2014, at 10:05:16
> > My post addressed Bob's liability as someone who blocked or otherwise acted to screen some of the content of users of psychobabble, and the idea that his actions in this role created discomfort that could cause him to need insurance.
> >
> > The act says that he has protection for his actions in that role.
> >
> > His actions as a creator of content, ie a poster himself, unless he posts in that role of an owner who is monitoring content, would be a different matter. He wouldn't be liable though for giving someone a PBC and stating the reasons for it, for example-- or for sanctioning people in a way that was perceived as unfair.
> >
> > I'm not sure what actions of his you find actionable.
>
> portormo and friends,
> It is written here,[...the act says that he has protection...he wouldn't be liable...for sanctioning...in an perceived unfair way...].
> Now readers, I want you to know that these statements here could not be as accurate as they claim to be by reading what I am about to post here so that you can make a more informed decision as to accepting the poster's clam here or not.
> The CDA does not give immunity to web site operators such as Mr. Hsiung (and his deputies of record as I will show here) if they develop the content or create it. Some rulings in he US hold the operator liable even if a third party posts it. The question that the high court needs to rule on is as to what is {developing or creating the content} have to have in order for it to be deemed as being created or developed. That question has already been decided in defamation law in the US and I will show you the principles involved to make that determination before CDA/230. And if the high court hears the parallel case, my friend-of-the-court brief will cover that. I am confident that justice Ginsberg could take heed to it and see what is happening here to use in some way for her opinion. This is because of that there are anti-Semitic statements and defamatory statements directed at me by third-party posters being allowed here to be seen where they are originally posted as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking and he will not remove or sanction them as I have requested him to do.
> This brings up the aspect of what is known as vicarious liability known as defamation by {ratification}. In cases before the CDA/230, let us suppose a hypothetical person, Helen Weilz, works at bakery that makes donuts. A coworker scribbles on the wall, "Helen Weilz is bigoted moron". Then Helen goes to the owner, Seymore Hienz, and wants the slogan removed. Seymore refuses and the slogan stays for months on the wall. People come in all day and buy donuts. Helen sues Seymore for {ratification} of the lible. This is all because Seymore knew of the libel and by not removing it effectively ratified the libel, or validated it. Seymore, the bakery owner, said that he was allowing it since he sold donuts, so that it would be good for the company as a hole. Helen sues Seymore for vicarious defamation. The court rules that by Seymore by not removing the defamation, he adopts what it purports as his own.
> And let us suppose that instead of the slogan, a swastica was drawn on the wall and a Jewish employee asked that it be removed and Seymore refused. And then let us suppose that it came to light that Seymore spray painted the swastika on the wall. Would Seymore be guilty of defamation of the Jews? Or could Seymore justify the allowing of the swastika to remain on the grounds that he did not want those that wanted the swastika to be displayed have their feelings hurt if it was removed? Or could Seymore justify the leaving of the swastika on the wall on the basis that it is "art"?
> Then there is another principle of defamation where a third party posts it. This I the aspect of what is known as {concert of action} that I will explain in my next post.
> Lou
>
Friends,
Now let's consider our hypothetical people, Seymore Hienz and Helen Weilz.
Let us suppose that Helen finds out that the slogan was put on the wall by a group of employees that broke in after hours. And one actually scribbled it on the wall, and another was a lookout, and another stole some donuts and another emptied the cash register. One of the actors goes to Seymore Hienz and confesses that they broke in and did what they did. Now Seymore calls the police, and erases the defamation on the wall. The police confront the others and they all confess. One member says that they only took the donuts, and another says that they did not take the money. And another says that they only broke the lock. And one said that they did nothing but look out the window.
The question here is:
A. Are all guilty of the theft of the money?
B. Are all guilty of the defamation on the wall?
C. Here Seymore acted on the grounds that he was doing what will be good for that community as a whole. Should he have not called the police on the grounds that the actors would feel bad by being arrested?
D. Are all of the actors guilty of all of the crimes?
E. Since the defamation was erased by Seymore, Helen does or does not have a claim for defamation?
F. Does it matter who ate the donuts?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1070154
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1070337.html