On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:53 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2008 7:33:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysidaway(a)gmail.com writes:
Yeah, basically we should not be handing hate speech, personal
attacks, etc, that we have deleted to anyone. That's republishing and
would expose us to secondary liability if there are legal problems.>>
-------------------
This is a doubtful proposition.
The concept of secondary liability has been used for a wide variety of
issues, when it's actually a very narrow concept. To wit, I have to know that
what I write is false and defamatory because my own underlying sources actually
state that it is false and defamatory, and I have to publish it regardless of
that knowledge.
That is very narrow, it would not imho apply to any of our articles.
Will
I'm sure the foundation's position would be the usual "You're on
your
own if you do this", but admins shouldn't be providing copies of
"problematic" articles. Just things deleted as "non-notable" or
"gibberish" or "spam".
WilyD