 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| BIG AIM LOG DEBATE by Fussbett 08/13/2003, 1:44am PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
Fussbett wrote: Senor Barborito: You're right of course. But I got turned down by the three other good hosts I found Sanitario666: I agree I'm right! The posting/linking of porn is unrelated to the legality of it, that's all I'm saying. Senor Barborito: Then I found pghoster.com, willing to budge a bit on their AUP AND fine with our content AND better than the others Senor Barborito: At that point, facing having to pay four times more per month, screw it. Sanitario666: Yes the hosting is a great thing. Should've happened long ago. For your sake. Senor Barborito: There's some POTENTIAL legal liability, but the truth is - it's FAR more about their corporate image Sanitario666: Zero potential legal liability. Sanitario666: Extrapolating outwards you're saying that it's illegal to host porn on the internet. POSSIBLY. Senor Barborito: By liability I mean they'd have to pay for lawyers because of the suit - judges have an unfortunately poor record of throwing out these kinds of suits by soccer moms at the initial hearing. (Columbine was caused by Doom suit, etc.) Sorry if that wasn't clear. Senor Barborito: It's certainly not illegal, but there's the 'have to pay for lawyers' liability. Sanitario666: Still disagree. By that logic, anyone can be sued at any time for anything, and despite being right or wrong, there is still the onus of paying for lawyers. Senor Barborito: They can, more or less BUT 99.9% of such suits are immediately thrown out at the initial hearing - no lawyer needed Sanitario666: Then yes, hosting porn is as dangerous, legally, as living and breathing. Senor Barborito: However, 'corrupted my children' suits usual make it through the initial hearing Sanitario666: That's paranoia. You think a judge doesn't know there is porn on the internet by now? Senor Barborito: It is paranoia, but lawyers are paranoid, and lawyers write those AUPs Sanitario666: You can't live life based in fear of unbased frivolous lawsuits. Well, YOU can, but I mean you shouldn't. Senor Barborito: *shrugs* I do until I'm no longer hosting caltrops.com Senor Barborito: Have been all the time I've been hosting it. Haven't so much as spit in the grass. It's easier when you refuse to interact with the real world whatsoever. No warez or anything to be found should a subpeona/search warrant hit me. Sanitario666: Right. And that's your thing, your schtick. But I'm just here to tell you you're wrong about this porn issue. That's all. Objectively wrong. Senor Barborito: I'm wrong in the sense of 'realistically what is likely to happen' Sanitario666: And also: the law. Senor Barborito: I'm right in the 'in a billion years this might happen' Senor Barborito: Oh don't get me wrong - that mother would NEVER win her suit. NEVER EVER EVER but she could drag it out enough to give the company a minor headache. For $185 a year, we're not worth that minor headache Sanitario666: By your logic, no one should ever own real estate because someone MIGHT trip and sue. No one should ever speak an opinion for FEAR of a slander suit. It's an impossible task, and you're really keying on the porn issue because it's mentioned so often by ISPs. Senor Barborito: *nods* I'm aware of the former two, and they are cause for concern. Sanitario666: Well, then I give up. Senor Barborito: In fact my mother was deathly afraid of one of my friends getting hurt on her property as a child and as a result I was required to spend almost all my time with them at their houses and not mine. Senor Barborito: I'm not joking, either. Senor Barborito: My family taught me to be careful about ANY potential threat. That's why the obsession with BSD, and everything else. I do what I can, try to make sure I'm unquestionably above reproach in the legal sense, etc. As for 'what you say', free speech protections are so vast in this country that judges throw out almost anything that smacks of censorship at the initial hearing. Sanitario666: Remember when you told Cyrris that his family was partly to blame for his balloon head? Well maybe it's time to realize that your family was a bit nutty. Senor Barborito: I know, my family is partly to blame for my crazy. I realized that quite a while back. Sanitario666: "As for 'what you say', free speech protections are so vast in this country that judges throw out almost anything that smacks of censorship at the initial hearing." == Porn on the internet. Senor Barborito: Porn's different - people claim emotional damage over porn and suddenly judges lose common sense because they think it might be true. This especially applies to goatse, etc. Things go past the initial hearing depressing often in those kinds of suits (or id never would have had to pay a lawyer for the Columbine suit) Sanitario666: Your world is full of exceptions and paranoid craziness. Senor Barborito: *shrugs* my world is full of looking at what cases judges allow to go beyond initial hearing and being slightly depressed and angry about it but ultimately helpless and very, very cautious. Sanitario666: A rose by any other name. Senor Barborito: Yes. But when you say 'exceptions' it sounds like I'm losing basis in reality, when in fact judges allow that kind of shit past initial hearing FAR too often. Bluntly: I'm basing on what actually happens. Sanitario666: Link plz. Senor Barborito: No link necessary (and I'm headed for bed - been going to bed at 5PM for a week and I'm nearly about to pass out at the moment) - the Doom suit is all you need to know because it has the EXACT SAME basis. Sanitario666: Except totally different. Senor Barborito: No, it's not. The reason the suit made it past is the reason any suit on offensive content ever makes it past initial hearing - judges are open to the possibility that such a thing MIGHT cause emotional damage. This is why those kinds of AUPs are on EVERY NON-PORN HOST OUT THERE, and why porn-hosting commands a premium price. They wouldn't be there if this didn't happen. Sanitario666: Wrong. Hosts don't want porn so that they can have a "clean" image, and because it's popular and a drain on their systems. Low price = no porn. Sanitario666: [The Doom case is different in these ways...] Producers versus hosters, violence versus porn, murder spree versus a boner, and copious hearsay evidence of causal factor versus... Senor Barborito: versus 'johnny jerking off more since he started looking at porn and his mom noticing' Senor Barborito: Nope. Same basis - judges willing to consider content offensive enough to cause emotional damage. Sanitario666: If you can't see how Doom being hauled into court after a high school killing spree is not related to someone hosting porn, we can't begin to see each other's argument. Senor Barborito: I can't see that, because the reason either makes it beyond initial hearing is the same. Sanitario666: What if Johnny sees a magazine? Does the magazine publisher get sued? The convenience store? The paper mill? The ink manufacturer? Senor Barborito: Yes, maybe yes, no and no. Sanitario666: Porn: Now Illegal. Sanitario666: Who knew? Sanitario666: We're done. Senor Barborito: Not illegal Senor Barborito: Just a liability Senor Barborito: There's a world of difference. Sanitario666: Well, keep being scared. I'm sure it's working out for you. Senor Barborito: I'm not scared at all - I'm 100% positive nobody has any grounds on which to sue me that would make it beyond initial hearing. Senor Barborito: I will continue to be extremely cautious in everything I do, though. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
