Re: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 03.02.2010 00:36, schrieb Rob: The Chinese have asying: "2 things do not return to you: 1: the arrow you have released from the bow's string 2: the word you have spoken " I consider it a quality of mailing lists, that you cannot easily doctor or erase, what you have sent. Of course one should switch some brains "ON" before sending, even though I did not do so in each and every case I posted, I still see this principle at work when I read mailing lists and I like it. For the legal issues: in Germany, someone, who adminsters a website or any other communication-device accessable by the public is responsible for unlawfull posts as a so-called "Mitstörer" (co-offender). That is: such a person is not directly liable for any offending posts but has to act within 48h when he/she is informed, that a post is offending someone or affecting the law. And the admin has to do so in the limits of what is actually possible for him/her. You have to remove posts from you own site and maybe inform mirroring sites that you know of, then you did what you can and thats it. The rest is between the lawyer and the OP, who's mail-adress is known. So IF a lawyer sends you a letter (usually a signed one on paper), telling you the post found at this or that url, is offending someone, the lawyer works for, you have to act whithin 48h after recieving the mail. If it is not a lawyer but a OP, that finds out his/her own post offending/unlawfull, it is wise, to remove/censor what can be reached, if you dont, you should be quite sure, that you can make a stand before court in the sense of: "yes, I did know, that the OP was sure the post was offending but I did not believe - I choose to wait for a letter from a lawyer...". In that case the risk, to be at least charged for the costs of the lawsuit is quite high. This all goes for german jurisdiction and the rules are only derivatives of practical jurisdiction, spoken by judges in actual lawsuites, they are not hardcoded to the law. I also think, that the risk to loose rights, you do not exercise, is quite high. So in the given case I see a diclosure of information that is no disclosure after all, since everybody can interpolate, where the support for iLocked plug-ins in receptor comes from. So defending the right of free expression against a case of utter stupidity could be a good thing to do here. Still the post is from the OP and if he gets in trouble, because you want to fight stupidity, it is a different matter... best regards "I did not say that - and also I was not here...." the navigator(C)(R) in Frank Herberts "Dune"(C)(R) as adapted in a Film(C)(R) by David Lynch.... ;-) HZN