🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34BA773B.59FA@direct.ca>, Randy Wittchen <wittchen@direct.ca> says:


>Police always act on their own authority to investigate potential
>criminal offenses with a view to laying charges.  

I have no problems with investigations, I am more concerned about the
potential liability of an ISP leaving them vulnerable to police pressure.
The incident last year when police wandered into a library and tried to 
seize an allegedly pornographic book, only to be told to hop it by the 
librarian, comes to mind.  An ISP worried about liability/guilt would
be unlikely to act in such a way

>...

>Similarly any person could bring a civil suit
>for libel or slander and publication and so name the ISP as well as the
>poster....
>... As an ISP, why would you
>take the chance of conviction or finding of liability and incur the
>expense?

Nothing could induce me to face such a risk.  Which is why, as the law 
evolves, I believe it important that legislation should extend the 
immunities of a common carrier to the ISP's, leaving the poster to
face any repercussions caused by his actions without otherwise damaging
the free exchange on the internet.

>... where the ISP can demonstrate that it took action to
>disassociate itself as soon as it became aware of the potential
>liability.

Which is very much the situation I would think it best to avoid.
Potential liabilities (or criminal charges) can lurk anywhere.  At
any time I could inform an ISP that I find post "X" or site "Y" to 
be extremely offensive, damaging to me as an individual or as a 
member of an identifiable group, and most probably criminal.  What
is an ISP to do.  Nothing?  Shut it down on my say so?  Call in a 
lawyer for an expensive opinion?  In my view an ISP is in no position,
and should have no duty, to make any determination, and should by 
federal statute be held unaware, of such matters. 

It is in this respect that I find AUP's that go beyond "Thou shall not
spam" a bit tricky from an ISP's point of view.  Are they creating a duty
for themselves where none should exist?  How are they to judge if 
something is offensive/indecent/pornographic/libellous/blasphemous/
seditious.  They would have to hire every lawyer in the country.

Should I or anyone else have a problem with a post or site let the poster
beware.  Attacks on ISPs rather than offending individuals are motivated
solely by the desire to limit free speech.

Cheers,
dba