New Rule here at Fchat. And it's simple and easy to follow.

No offense taken, I was just running out of valid point to express my dislike of this new rule.

 

how can one get HPV from Fchat is that a rossa or silver subscription

 

I don't think people are saying that it is OK to drive stupid fast on public roads and brag about it, personally, I take is as pretty dangerous thing to do if you ask me (the bragging, not the driving)........

However, the reporting of such an event by someone in a public forum is no basis for sanctions against said forum. If it is not the truth or is libellous that is another story........but the mere act of reporting an event..........is the same as a reporter talking about news. A non-issue.

 

Added emphasis...

 

I agree. Much like YouTube....excluding the censorship that goes on there. Anyone that shows themselves breaking the law and posting it isn't dealing with a full deck anyway, but it doesn't mean we don't want to see it. Personally I think F-chat opens themselves up for setting up rules for agreeing to discipline etc. people who post about driving that is a violation of the law. On a Ferrari board no less. I'd run this up the flag poll again rather than listening to some freebie attorney on here. Anyway, it ain't my sand box.

 

I suppose I shouldn't be suprised at the amount of controversy this new rule has generated. Earlier in this thread, I posted a few links which discussed the vicarious liability of a publisher for content which allegedly caused death or injury to an individual. One of the links was to a Federal Court of Appeals decision holding that a book publisher could be liable for publication of a Hit Man instruction manual when some misguided reader used it as a guide to murder several individuals. (There was also a pretty famous case that had gone on for years involving allegations against a major motion picture studio for releasing Natural Born Killers, claiming that it led to wrongful death by emulation- ordinarily, I'd be on the defending side of that one, at least recognizing art for art's sake, even if you don't like Oliver Stone's work, and I do).
Now, I appreciate that individuals posting here about hi-speed hi-jinx on public hiways or videos showing same do not necessarily amount to an instruction manual on reckless driving (although an argument could be made that hosting such material encourages it, which I frankly think is specious, but I don't think F-Chat wants to be a test case, and believe me, there will be a case about this sooner or later, if not involving cars, then something else). And, I also appreciate that Internet intermediaries, such as a website like Ferrari-Chat, enjoy additional protections under the Communications Decency Act that are not available to conventional print publishers. But, the principles of vicarious liability are well-established in the law. One who aids, abets or facilitates an illegal act can sometimes be held liable for that act, even if the aider, abetter or facilitater did not itself commit the act.
Part of the confusion here seems to stem from the difference between civil and criminal liability. Some of the confusion also seems to stem from whether an admission by a poster, including a video, establishing that a person was driving at say, 160 mph on a public highway, would be sufficient to 'convict' someone for an illegal act. Let's deal with the potential liability of the poster first, and let's assume that he or she makes admissions, or posts a video, of his own driving at 160 mph on a public road. Would the law enforcement authorities bother to go after such a person? It has happened, and it is not limited to the Canadian example. If memory serves, a guy in Japan who videotaped his exploits in an F-40 was tracked down by law enforcment authorities there and the tape was used as evidence. I believe he was convicted, but would have to spend the time to find this. I am confident that there are other examples.
Let's turn to civil liability for a minute. Let's assume that the poster, after posting such material, a day or a year later, goes out and does bodily harm to someone as a result of his driving, causing injury or death to innocent bystanders or drivers. Don't you think, in a (civil) suit for damages for wrongful death, the claimant or estate will seek to use as evidence that the driver's acts were not simply an accident, but part of a deliberate pattern of reckless driving- and don't you think such evidence will be damning or at least highly prejudicial? Let's also assume that the accident was just that- and that the poster in that instance wasn't driving stupidly. Do you think that the party prosecuting the claim, whether it is a criminal or civil case, won't seek to use the posting as evidence to prove its case? I don't see the hearsay rule getting in the way of introducing such evidence, once it can be established that it was the defendant was the poster (or the subject of the post).
Now, all of this goes to the potential legal risks posed TO THE POSTER or SUBJECT by posting statements or videos evidencing excessive speed or reckless driving on the Internet. Maybe I am paranoid, but good sense would tell me that if I wanted to drive that way on public roads, I certainly wouldn't create a public record of it, accessible to the authorities or potential claimants in a civil suit.
Some of you may think otherwise, and for some reason, believe that your freedom of speech outweighs any risk you might suffer from such postings. I suppose that's your prerogative. But, and here's where the board issue comes in,
there is no reason why the board has to host such postings. In fact, I believe that it is not in the interests of the board to do so, simply because tolerating such postings can lead to an argument that the board encourages such behavior, expressly, tacitly or through negligence.
And this could expose the board to unnecessary legal wrangling, subpoenas, claims of vicarious liabilty (however ill-founded), etc.
I agree that this board has no role acting as a policeman in the real world of driving. If you want to drive like a maniac on public streets, that's your choice. But the board doesn't support it, and doesn't encourage it here on the site.
While it would seem to me that the poster's own self-interest would counsel against making such postings, it appears that there are some who might revel in them. And, for those posters, we have to be more overt and state that there is a policy here against such postings, that such postings will be removed and the posters sanctioned.
I'm not sure owning a Ferrari or other exotic is a license to drive recklessly or at excessive speeds on public roads. You may feel differently, and again, that is your choice. But, the board is not the place to document your exploits. I have tried to spell this out in a way that involves a minimum of legal mumbo-jumbo and also does not condescend. Sorry if you read it differently.

 

The law is clear, a website publisher is NOT responsible for content published by third parties.

The Communications Decency Act really provides fairly substantial protections," . "The more the Web site operator does to put content on or to edit content, the greater the risk."

U.S. Code Title 47, §230(c)1, states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Hollis v. Joseph (Dontdatehimgirl.com)

May I suggest by creating this rule, Rob has taken upon a legal duty that he did not otherwise have, to edit and enforce this rule, which if performed negligently might result in litigation that he was otherwise clearly protected under federal law!

 

Here's another one for the good guys:

"U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero on Thursday handed down a ruling stating that the gag power within the National Security Letter provisions of the amended Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The case, known as "Doe v. Gonzales," began in 2004. The ACLU filed the case on behalf of an anonymous Internet service provider that received a National Security Letter seeking information about customers."

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/59218.html

 

I suspect the REAL reason for this censorship is that a group of mods does not like these postings and they are using this thin legal veil as an excuse for it. Remember guys, it is Rob's site, but it's the COMMUNITY that makes it credible and enjoyable. To censor the content is to weed out a part of the community.

 

With all due respect, Rob, if we are expected to comply then it is personal. I especially liked the use of yelling--read use of all caps--in the thread starter; very appropriate for what I took to be a forum of gentlemen with a common interest.

Many of my posts have described adventures and events that might have garnered a citation had a peace officer been on the scene. Had I been cited, it would have fallen to me to defend the case or pay the fine. When we get behind the wheel of a car, every decision we make is our own and no one else's.

It is your forum and you make the rules. You also communicate them in the manner you and your associates deem appropriate. That I think this new TOU is dispiriting and was delivered with a decided lack of elegance is personal to me and should have no effect on you or the way you run your forum.

 

With no disrespect to Rob I'm not so sure about that? This site is about one thing and that's Ferrari. Without that it would not exist regardless of who happens to own the domain name. So IMO F-chat is owned by each and every one who is a member and that enjoys Ferrari and all that it stands for. For any one person to dictate what is and isn't is not following the true spirit of what Ferrari is all about. IMO censoring is not in the true Ferrari spirit.

 

No sir I disagree. Rob created this site and he is the one with the liability. Again it is easy to criticize when you have no financial stake involved.

 

Perhaps we should all act to limit his liability to a nullity by requesting he suspend our accounts and remove our posts. I invite him to start with mine.

 

+1

 

I think I have enough common sense to not post something that is going to cause a liability. If you feel you don't then maybe your request is the best action for you. Frankly I don't see why a man trying to cover himself from a liability is a problem. It isn't like it changes much. Speed and race all you want just don't post and encourage it here.

 

The liability you refer to is debatable. No one has come forward with precedence to show that there is any liability in a forum like this.

I don't want to encourage speed but I do enjoy watching/commenting on it. To say that having content on this forum encourages others to act on that is no different than what a teenager can see in a movie, on TV or hear about from their friends.

 

msgsobe - that was regarding Libel. The suit against the posters, on the other hand, is a legitimate defamation claim.

One might say: see? Ferrarichat is off the hook! But, that's a simpleton argument - see...

Ferrarichat seeks not just to indemnify itself from legal wranglings, after all, there's no such thing as cheap litigation - but, each member of it's community.

These people didn't protect themselves:

Illegal Street Racing on the Internet - 10/13/2006
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=local&id=4658325

YouTube clips led to racers' arrest
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061214.wxtube14/BNStory/National/home

YouTube is increasingly serving as an Internet super-sleuth as its helps police around the world nab dim-witted criminals who videotape themselves breaking the law and then upload the evidence.

The teens, whose names police haven't released, face charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, racing with another motor vehicle, driving carelessly and driving imprudently. They are to appear in court next month.

The video has since been removed from YouTube.
__________

Since the outcry is something akin to someone of the Victorian Era saying "scandalous" - I incorporated it into a search: the first hit on google for; scandalous streetracing video =

streetracingusa.com

This is on the entry page. They're making up reality as they go along.

"By entering this website you agree not to partake in any legal action against liextreme.com or any or its subsidiaries, directors, officers,agents, employees, and members. By entering this website you are of the full understanding that this website is for information purposes only and liextreme subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, or members do not condone or support illegal street racing or any other illegal behaviors. I understand that in the event of a court order, my information can be given. I understand that writing, pictures and videos may be falsified or altered and therefore no person, car, motor vehicle, motor vehicle owner, or spectator can be held accountable for any visual or written media seen in this website. Because all written and visual media may be falsified or altered, no person, family member, heir, legal representative, officer of the court, peace officer, or any other legal officer, may construe any of this website as real and can not hold anyone participating in this site accountable including liextreme.com, 2fast2real.com, streetracingusa.com or any or its subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, and members. streetracingusa.com"

Oooookay...

They try to take no responsibility in spite of themselves, their site name and through the laws of attraction: metatags;

Street Racing Videos , Street Racing usa,streetrace,drag,dragrace,drag race,street race,street racing,drag racing,dragracing,streetraces,street races,dragraces,drag races,stoplight,stop light,street, racing, videos, muscle car, muclecars, musclecar, muscle, american muscle video, motorcycle, bikes, cars, imports, stunts, driving, crash, crashes, crashing, mpg, mpeg, avi, live, online, mov,street race videos, street racing videos, street racing video, street racing movies, street race video, drifting movies, drifting video, drifting videos, street racing movie, streetracing videos, street race movies, drifting movie, streetracing video, street race movie, streetracing movies, streetrace video,illegal streetracing

As opposed to Ferrarichat's metatags: ferrari vintage cavallino Italy Maranello Modena Enzo F1 Concours
_____

But, it's not just about video, people, in the final analysis it boils down to responsibility.

One should take responsibility for one's own actions. Three cases are worth mentioning:

The case that was the inspiration for the Stella Awards: The awards are named after Stella Liebeck, who spilled a 49-cent coffee on herself while eating a hamburger at McDonald's. She sued McDonald's and successfully recovered over $500,000.

The second is the case of Shelly Moore, who left her daughter, Shannon, unattended in her car. The car burst into flames and Shannon was horrifically burnt. Shannon sued Philip Morris, who made the Marlboro cigarettes Ms Moore smoked. Shannon's claim was that a smouldering cigarette caused the fire and her injuries were the tobacco company's fault for failing to design a cigarette that would not stop burning. Philip Morris settled for $2 million.

The third is a case where two carpet installers, who admitted that they read the label of the adhesive they used, and admitted they understood the adhesive was inflammable and should not be used inside, used it inside anyway, caused an explosion, were burned badly, sued and won $8 million.

These three examples are typical of the vast number of negligence cases that have been resolved, in recent times, with little regard to the personal responsibility of the plaintiff for the loss sustained.

What does personal responsibility mean? It means taking responsibility for one's own decisions and actions. It means personal accountability to the standards of society.

This simple proposition carries with it implications that are contrary to many trends in popular modern day culture. Being responsible for one's behaviour means acknowledging the existence of objective standards against which behaviour can be measured. This means that people can be wrong, hence, guilty, hence, personally responsible.
_____

Though the inidividuals were at fault, the suppliers were found negligent. Stupid? You bet! Just sayin'.

Since the subject at hand is all about Speed Racer videos, Ferrarichat ain't negligent. It takes responsibility for it's own actions. By curtailing posting videos of the subject at hand, it discourages those who might be "inspired" by a posting to try to equal or beat the "inspiration" and maim themselves or others in settings not designed for the express purpose of racing, whether the tape is rolling or not. If one wishes, they can go to streetracingusa.com, et al, and post those wink-wink nudge-nudge "fake" videos to their heart's content.

 

Man, what a big deal everyone is making about all of this.

It benefits everyone if videos of or posts about reckless driving aren't posted here because it keeps law enforcement off of everyone's back. If you need to brag to the world about your triple digit speeds on public highways you have a lot more problems than Rob infringing on your "free speech"

The bottom line is that Rob makes the rules. If he doesn't want pics of lamborghins he can delete those threads. This is far from unreasonable.

 

yeah, and the earth could stop turning tomorrow. how do you leave the house in the morning with this attitude? wouldn't it be safer to stay inside? someone COULD sue you. Like i said before, the most outrageous posts should be deleted. and an explanation should be posted. or maybe a disclaimer on the offending post like" this is a public forum and we cannot check the accuracy of all posts. the forum admin does not condone x behaviour. but blanket saying your gonna delete posts and ban people with such a broad brush is bs. if i post a pic of "someone" doing 140 in a f-car, rob should have the nads to leave it up. if i post a video of me weaving around traffic at 120 endangering lives, obviously the community and the admins will condemn it. i think it would be quite a stretch for rob to be sued over it. on a side note. this announcement was handled all wrong. a few well placed pm's to the offenders would have done the trick. making such a big fuss over something that rivals getting struck by lightning statistically is just plain silly. now you just look like some scared nannies. it reminds me of the time i got banned for calling a gay guy a gay guy. unclench the butt cheaks and breath out. it's gonna be O.K.

 

+1

 

I am pretty new to the Fchat community and I like the way the moderators control the site. This particular issue puzzles me a bit. It is a forum of Ferrari enthusiast and evidenced by the response to this thread, very involved ones.

Um...they speed.

I don't see much discussion about it and it would never be my style of posting but I would think a Hold Harmless disclosure that each member agrees to on a click acknowledge would cover simple liability on this type of issue. I really do not see the innate responsibility to Rob as I have seen some pretty blatant displays of illegal activity on a few other sites but the only thing I have ever really heard of that placed blame is that it was seen by law enforcement and they took action on the perp and the poster.

I understand about wanting to shed the image of condoning lawless behavior but I think this might be splitting hairs. If someone posts fast driving technique and capable vehicle speeds or an exciting instance on the track in the race forum, could this theoretically be influencing someone to exercise these capabilities and techniques on the street?

I would do the Hold Harmless click and moderate the really wild posts,

Just my opinion.

 

this thread will make 'thread of the month'!!

 

i read em like they are written.