Hi Larry ,
Larry Winters wrote:
Any so called Legal statement can be challenged and often is...Just because DPR states they aren't repsonsible for what is written doesn't make it legally binding...Do you understand that basic legal concept? ...
DPR's paying advertisers may have causes of action related to spammers getting free advertising while other parties must pay. There are local/provincial/national laws enacted relating to offensive content of an erotic nature, and those that may apply to discrimination against certain "protected class" groups of individuals.
Other than those specifics, it's hard to imagine anyone successfully managing to litigate civil damages for their own knowingly and willfully choosing to view (or perhaps log on as a "member" to) what is nothing but a free web-site that happens to maintain message-boards. Such complaints would seem to constitute the essence of a genuinely self-imposed "victimhood", would they not ?
... So many falsely believe they can subvert the law by making these so called legal declarations that often have no authority...(IE) Stating you can't be sued when essentially anyone can be sued for almost anything at anytime...I know this is pathetic, but ignoring this fact is naive...
In the US, around 85% of all litigation is corporate to corporate in civil proceedings. That's what legal departments exist to manage - and you can well bet that Amazon retains (and pays real money to) plenty of legal types, anyway ...
I'm still saying any moderator can be made the legal scapegoat...
If they are unwise enough to publicize their real name and location, then they might be locatable for the purpose of serving hard-copy writs of complaint for civil actions, indeed. Could happen. Anybody (who can afford to) can sue you within your geographical area of court jurisdiction, and within the appropriate system of courts.
Perhaps this is what companies mean (in part) when they describe "volunteer opportunities" ?
It may seem immoral, etc., but saying they are not responsible or DPR is not liable is just not legally correct...
Legal matters can be traumatic to be exposed to or to be involved in. It tends to lead to a generalized sense of malaise, drifting towards a sense of paranoia. That's precisely the kind of "sweat" that Amazon no doubt all ready pays their legal council big money to worry about. Not some well-meaning person who was just "trying to help out" fellow humans - so that Amazon's stock-price could appreciate (a small fraction of a fraction of one percent) further on Wall Street.
I like Daniel's thought ... (paraphrased) "where are those 'job creators', anyway?" ...
DPR, I live in Seattle (so you could have a bit hold on me, pinch me, kick me), and if you were to offer to
pay me a real and fair wage as an
employee (with rights of employment, and the resulting legal protections afforded), and if I can work from my home, I will be your PTF "Cyber-Concretinator" ... Call Me ...
Term of Service agreements are argued in court all the time...I'm sure most of the owners figured them ironclad only to find out different...
I deal with this all the time where people write their own leases and say the renter can't do this or that and then signed by all parties...Only to find out State or Federal law prevents them form trying to enforce these actions. (IE) stating the renter must give a 60 day notice when in most states 30 days are all that is required by law...
Sounds like you (like me) have waded into landlord-tenant laws/rules, and/or other areas of applied law ? It is true (in the US) that pretty much any/call contracts entered into by private parties may contain language that may be held to be un-enforcable under existing laws/rules in a court of relevant jurisdiction.
Your generalized (and I think well-intended, having "been there" before) sense of worry expressed implies to me that you might well sit on (or on behalf of) the more "liable" side of that aisle ?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as they say...
Yet it is a strongly held view of laypersons that such an (actual) requirement upon a populace is unfair (and they sometimes imagine un-enforcable) to mere wage-slaves and worker-bees who are quite busy desperately struggling to survive, etc., and have not the time to lounge in depth at a local university's Lie Lawbrary ...
While it seems on its face impractical that the State would have to provide hands-on "legal training" for its citizens, the reality (in the US) is that "ignorance is imagined to be bliss", and an elite professional class exists to extract huge sums of money from the poor person who becomes entwined (hopefully not inextricably) within the snares of the all-dreaded "legal trouble" affliction.
The legal system in the US is truly a disaster for the unfortunate pro-se litigant of modest resources. The vast majority of the populace is made to slump in limp submission to the monied parties who can and reliably do prevail in civil legal proceedings (not to mention criminal proceedings, where the two largest minority ethnic groups in the US are roughly 3 times more likely to be convicted than Caucasians). Those are simple facts. I have no interest in political debates (please).
"Ignorance" is no excuse where a reasonable expectation of wisdom and conscience exercised might have prevented harm (actual, or financial) in a generalized moral/ethical sense. But what it means to be "learned" is about as straightforward to define as the infamous and ethereal term "Image Quality" ...
Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise .
- Thomas Gray
DM ...
