🚀 go-pugleaf

Stuart Lynne wrote:
> 
> In article <31E3E43A.585C@zoology.ubc.ca>,
> Shaun Foy  <sfoy@zoology.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >Stuart Lynne wrote:
> >>
> >> Unfortunately it's not litigation we worry about
> >> but having to defend against a criminal prosecution
> >> either at the corporate or personal level.
> >> [...]
> >> Their claim that you are speeding might never
> >> hold up in court, but you still waste time and money
> >> defending yourself against the prosecution.
> >
> >You have implied a difference between litigation and
> >defending a criminal prosecution. I see these two as
> >being the same. I make this point because I see you
> >arguing the same thing I am. In the end, a business
> >may make the decision not to carry a newsgroup because
> >of a potential financial cost - this can be payment
> >to a litigator, payment of fines, loss in business
> >because they were shut down, etc. I see this as being
> >a plausible reason for making these changes.
> 
> They are not the same. A lawsuit will generally only be taken
> against the company. Criminal prosecution will more likely be
> against the individuals making decisions and implementing them.
> 
> I.e. it won't be Istar in the dock. It will be the people
> running the machines who may get sent to jail.
> 

Stuart,

Let's see if we can agree on something here - I think 
this argument is about semantics.

The word litigation includes both civil and criminal 
lawsuits. I was not restricting its use to one or the
other. Both criminal and civil litigation costs money, 
thus my argument that a company would avoid these 
newsgroups to avoid potential cost of fighting litigation. 
I expect that a company would, in most cases, pay the 
cost of defending an employee charged with a crime while 
carrying out his job. So, this is where my point, in the 
previous post, arises.

Your point, as I see it, that employees don't want
to put themselves at risk of being charged with a criminal
offense is a good point. I see this as supporting my argument
for companies removing these groups - although I do stress
the financial costs over the emotional cost to employees. 

Also, I think it is very common for companies to be 
charged with criminal offences. I believe this is particularly 
the case with companies involved in some regulated area 
(ie, broadcasting companies, mining companies, securities 
companies, retail stores, etc.)

To reiterate, I believe that companies could, and should, drop
these newsgroups to protect against potential litigation, be
it civil or criminal. I don't agree with them removing the 
newsgroups based on their application of acceptable morals.

Kind Regards,

Shaun.