[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 13/01/13 23:21, Martijn Grooten wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Edward Finlayson wrote: >> the recent state of criminal cases being prosecuted on the strength of twitter >> posts etc. > The cases I'm aware of involved a presumed terrorist threat and the > intrusion of someone's privacy. I think don't think people should have > been prosecuted for this (at all), but I doubt a disclaimer would have > made a difference here. (And, say, if you made a convincing terrorist > threat somewhere online, do you think a site's disclaimer should > prevent you from being prosecuted?) > > Again, if someone with more legal knowledge than I posses can convince > me that disclaimers are necessary, I'm fine with that. (Because - > disclaimer - IANAL.) But just putting some disclaimer-y stuff > somewhere, because the Internet can get you into trouble, isn't going > to make a difference. > > Martijn. > I 100% agree with this and argued for this last time around. The sort of mouth breathing inbred who would sue over something like this isn't going to be remotely put off by some copy/paste boilerplate legalese. None of us our lawyers - as far as I know - and therefore all of this is a waste of time anyway: we're simply incapable of handling this in any legally water-tight fashion. Forget the disclaimer, it's pathetic. Regards -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq