🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EvpI7G.FD8.0.spadina@torfree.net>,
Kenneth Edward Smith <cg591@torfree.net> wrote:
|Yello Biennual (bdb@GTS.Net) wrote:
|
|: 	The second is the conclusion to the Liability
|: 	section:
|
|: However, in the present state of the law, it remains difficult to
|: distinguish the circumstances in which an access provider should
|: act to prevent prejudice from those situations which do not present
|: a sufficiently clear case to justify an intervention which often
|: could result in severe censorship. Without having access to the
|: viewpoints of all those involved, it is indeed very difficult to
|: determine whether a specific content is actionable. The access
|: provider thus finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being
|: criticized at some point for having permitted a content harming a
|: person to circulate, when it is really very poorly placed to
|: intervene in order to suppress a content of which the harmful
|: nature is often far from obvious. Moreover, the principle of
|: freedom of expression as it is understood in democratic societies
|: concords poorly with practices in which access providers would
|: pass judgment on the potentially actionable or harmful nature
|: of information passing through their facilities. 
|
|Translation:  There are grey areas, and folks have to be very careful.


	Good lord.  If that's all you have gotten from that
	paragraph...  *gulp*


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker		Toronto, Ontario	1 416 699 1868
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@gts.org	Uucp: ...!gts!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "...and then we had to reformat the Ontario government
 _< /_	 		'cos it had a boot-camp virus"		- Gully Foyle