Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let’s Talk About Our Feelings about the Let’s Talk About Our -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (1493)	3/19/2005 11:22:37 PM
From: SI Dave	Respond to of 5290

That article pertains to a Russian court holding an ISP responsible for libelous statements posted by third parties. The author surmises the ruling could have negative consequences for "free speech" (there) if the operators (there) are forced into a position of determining libel and removing such statements. Current case law in the US holds the ISP and by extension message board operators (i.e., the carriers) are not responsible for libelous statements made by third parties; the person who actually posted alleged libelous comments is ultimately responsible. Rulings similar to this Russian court have and do occur occasionally in US lower courts, and are typically overturned on appeal. You're going to have to lead me by the nose to the implied connection between that article and "Maybe you need to emigrate. Looks like your standard may be enforced by the KGB here." What standard? And, where was the reference to the KGB? What does an article about a Russian court ruling that a Russian ISP can be be held liable for damages from statements made by third parties have to do with... anything? >>One of the earliest observations made about it was that people were not as polite on it as they were in daily life. It seems there's a difference between facing a keyboard and facing a real live, potentially dangerous human being. It's as true today as it was then. It's also true of email, which is why some businesses still discourage employees conducting business via email. I can't count how many times I've misinterpreted someone else's e-comment or had them misinterpret mine simply because it lacked a closing emoticon. >>But you seem to want to repeal reality. What reality would that be? One where people post whatever they want with impunity from the site operators? That's never been the reality here, at least not in name with the exception of a couple of threads. However; I'll be the first to observe that there have been a couple of periods in SI's long history where that was the reality in practice, at least to some extent and for various reasons. >>Meanwhile, for those interested, Yahoo is still in business. Indeed. There's a place where one can post whatever they want with apparent impunity from their TOS. I've referred SI members there on more than one occasion to "air it out". Their TOS are far more extensive than SI's, yet I've never seen any attempt to implement the portions dealing with user conduct. >>I will hardly be the first to make that march. Other refugees are already there. Whatever floats your boat. It's not like the Yahoo boards are a secret, or just came into being today. I've posted there many times over the years (and Raging Bull and iHub) as have many other SI'ers. >>And that old, old internet from 30 years ago is still out there and alive and well and active. PM or email me about it. As in the Usenet groups? That's not a secret either, although it's been a long, long time since I personally posted there. >>If disagreeing with Admin is now a terminable offense, hit the button. Being disagreeable, or disagreeing? We've disagreed on more than one occasion, and neither of your past suspensions were issued by me. Interestingly enough, I've witnessed users who claimed to have been suspended when it was actually self-imposed. So, if you really feel the need, be my guest and mum's the word! ;-)