[51686] in Cypherpunks
Re: Vexatious Litigants (was: SurfWatch)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Diehl)
Fri Mar 8 16:47:36 1996
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 96 16:03:23 CST
From: "Martin Diehl" <mdiehl@dttus.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Henry Huang <hwh6k@fulton.seas.virginia.edu> at INTERNET-USA wrote:
> On Mar 7, 22:29, Timothy C. May wrote:
> > At 2:38 AM 3/8/96, Bill Frantz wrote:
> > >At 6:59 PM 3/7/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
> > >>If SurfWatch can be sued for a "bad review," then Siskel and Ebert
> > >>had better find a new line of work.
> > >
> > >As long as a reviewer corrects errors, as SurfWatch seems to be
> > >willing to do, I think they are relatively suit-proof. If they don't,
> > >well - anyone can be sued for anything. I'll let the lawyers comment
> > >on the possibility of success.
>
[snip]
> Thanks for the clarification. However, this line of argument applies
> only to "third-party" ratings systems. Right now,
> Microsoft/RSAC/SurfWatch and SafeSurf/Cybersitter/etc. are setting up
> competing standards which would essentially force people to
> "self-rate" their own sites, or else be blocked out by browsers
> configured to reject unrated sites (a feature Microsoft plans to add
> to its Internet Explorer).
> The question I have is if these systems were widely implemented, could
> an Web page author or provider of content be sued for "mislabeling"
> their page? If so, under what circumstances? Could the RSAC attach
> legal requirements to the use of their system, and open up such a
> loophole (similar to how Sun attaches conditions to the use of its
> "Java" logo)?
Seems to me that if the Web page author labels his page
conservatively, i. e. "materials may be unsuitable for non-adults; may
contain controversial material, may contain views different from your
own, etc.". How can the author be liable for mislabeling?
Martin G. Diehl
