Cheney Defies Bush Order; Endangers National Security

[Kuciwalker]

I spoke to my attorney and he said yes, it is a threat. Happy, Ming?

[Kuciwalker]

I just confirmed it with my other attorney.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I read the opinion, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't cover Apolyton. At the very least Apolyton can be required to remove the material.

Look at all the other similar cases, and you'll see the pattern. I chose that one because the court thought there was enough merit to not just toss out the entire suit, but that there was no way AOL could be held liable. It would apply to Apolyton as well. The only way the site gets in trouble is if it is told (by somebody with a bit more legal standing than Drake) to pull the content and refuses.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I spoke to my attorney and he said yes, it is a threat. Happy, Ming?

Gee... I just checked with one of my attorney friends and she said it was questionable at best.

Happy Kuci?

[Kuciwalker]

AOL is not quite the same as Apolyton.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ming


Gee... I just checked with one of my attorney friends and she said it was questionable at best.

Happy Kuci?

So you're happy to expose yourself to what has been admitted (by three attorneys out of the three asked) a potential legal liability?

[Ming]

Three out of three? How is that. Mine said it was "questionable" at best... She went on to say that she could probably argue successfully that it wasn't a threat.

If the feds asked us to take it down, we would... but we aren't going to do it based on a personal feud.

I have still seen nothing that convinces me that any law has been broken.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

AOL is not quite the same as Apolyton.

Jesus Kuci, I've been told this by academics and practitioners in the field up to an including attorneys at the EFF and Google. You want to argue about it, go talk to them, I'm just telling you the facts.

[DRoseDARs]

Is anyone else disturbed that the admins (Ming in particular) refuse to err on the side of caution on this, especially given Ming's own admission that his attorney friend called it "questionable at best" ?

Oerdin, you naughty little scamp. See what you've started?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

On the contrary, I'm quite happy that they haven't folded to a bunch of trolls who don't have the first clue what they're talking about.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ming
Three out of three? How is that. Mine said it was "questionable" at best... She went on to say that she could probably argue successfully that it wasn't a threat.

potential legal liability. By your own words, your friend admitted it was such.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
On the contrary, I'm quite happy that they haven't folded to a bunch of trolls who don't have the first clue what they're talking about.

How many lawyers do you want to agree with Kuci?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
On the contrary, I'm quite happy that they haven't folded to a bunch of trolls who don't have the first clue what they're talking about.

Exactly... people with personal feuds trying desperately to use laws they don't really understand to further their agenda...

Come up with proof beyond your biased crap, and then it might be worth listening to. Again, nothing posted here is convincing.

[Kuciwalker]

I did, Ming. Weren't you listening?

What did you say... that you asked two lawyers... not proof to me. For all I know, you are making it up.

The one I asked first laughed, and said it was questionable at best on whether it was a threat, and went on to say she could probably argue that it wasn't.

She also said not to worry. Good enough for me.

[Drake Tungsten]

On the contrary, I'm quite happy that they haven't folded to a bunch of trolls who don't have the first clue what they're talking about.

When did making a recommendation that has now been confirmed as the smart course of action by three seperate attorneys become tantamount to being a "troll who doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about"?