🚀 go-pugleaf

Related to online censoring ...
Reposted from comp.internet.net-happenings:

> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 14:53:42 -0700
> From: " Thomas W. Perrin" <tperrin937@worldnet.att.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib@library.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: From Surf to Surfing:How a NJ Court might rule on Filters & Libraries
> 
> In a decision announced yesterday, the New Jersey Court of Appeals in  
> WILLIAM FLEUHR, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CITY OF CAPE MAY,  
> Defendant-Respondent, and JOHN DOE and COUNTY OF CAPE MAY, Defendants,
>  indicated how it "might" rule in any case involving an internet filter
>  and a public library. This case was reported in the Trenton, NJ Times 
> on Thursday, July 31, 1997 (Associated Press) on page A7, and the 
> complete opinion is available on the internet at:
>  http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a0846-96.opn.html.
>  
> The Appeals Court decision involved a bather who broke his neck
> when hit by a wave caused by Hurricane Emily. 
> 
> The court in its opinion ruled that municipalities are free of liability
> if they provide no lifeguards at all, but do incur liability if there is
> "some conduct, no matter how minute, evidencing an intention to
> supervise by way of monitoring."
> 
> The parallels to the filter debate are very strong, and perhaps ought to
> be considered by those who would filter/censor.
>  
> 
>  Tom Perrin
> 
> 


--
####    |\^/|     Colin R. Leech     ag414 or crleech@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\|   |/|_  Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### >         <  Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
####  >_./|\._<   "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown