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

True. What is not is Rob's willingness to gamble on other people's opinion. He sought legal council he trusts and came up with a solution that he is comfortable with. Quite frankly I agree with it and think it is overdue. If you don't think it is a risk start up another site and host this kind of material. But I think all need to respect Rob to make his own decision with how much risk he is willing to take (No matter how debatable it is). I don't take a vote when making legal decisions about my business and nor should Rob have to.

 

In my opinion, there is NO LIABILTY for a website provider. Posters, yes, provider, no. Plain and simple. I could find NO caselaw where a provider was found liable civil or otherwise, for actions of posters. Now here's my disclaimer, consult with your own attorney, but ask him if he's heard of the CDA!

wax, the cases you cite are against the posters, not the provider. Show me one succesful case against a provider as a result of actions of a poster and I'll change my tune...but you can't.

 

hard to argue with that. but i'll try. It COULD happen!

 

With that disclaimer, why are you arguing? Bill Hart is an attorney, he wrote the new rule, advised Rob of his options and if you read Bill's post, he does discuss the CDA. It seems like rather than discussing the legal issues here, you should take it offline with Bill, attorney to attorney.

 

I welcome an open discussion with Bill regarding his recommendations regarding what is now known as "THE RULE", but I believe it is appropriate to do so here, out in the open, where many have expressed an interest. I am not inflexible, and have been convinced in the past that my position was in error, and will be the first to admit if I am wrong. So, show me I am wrong!