原帖由 cello 于 18-4-2012 20:06 发表
另外反对一下针对管理员的阴谋论。其实对于我来说保管其中一个域名这个权利只是责任而已,在辞职时候也申请过交出域名,只是因为没有合适的合法接收方暂缓了而已。
当然现在既然域名在我保管,如果真的遇到法律纠纷 ...
原帖由 cello 于 18-4-2012 20:06 发表 [img]http://2f[/img]
另外,。。。如果真的遇到法律纠纷 ... 个人还是希望能有更好更合法的法人能够代表论坛去解决类似问题,这其实也是对全体用户基本权益的一个基本保障。
原帖由 雅瑶冬月 于 19-4-2012 00:24 发表
基本法是否有英译本? 如果有,是否可以用来证明Cello非论坛负责人?
这件事情,首先要把那帖子拿下来,第二是向对方说明本论坛负责人是谁,然后由负责人去和对方律师商讨解决方法。
原帖由 雅瑶冬月 于 19-4-2012 00:24 发表
基本法是否有英译本? 如果有,是否可以用来证明Cello非论坛负责人?
这件事情,首先要把那帖子拿下来,第二是向对方说明本论坛负责人是谁,然后由负责人去和对方律师商讨解决方法。
Liabilities of forum owners and moderators
Several lawsuits have been brought against the forums and moderators claiming libel and damage. A recent case is the scubaboard lawsuit where a business in the Maldives filed a suit against scubaboard for libel and defamation in January 2010.
For the most part, though, forum owners and moderators in the United States are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that "[n]o 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."
原帖由 ubuntuhk 于 19-4-2012 01:00 发表
我在帮我自己,哪天我收到这种法律文书的时候,希望能有人哪怕问候一句或者回答一句已经在内部讨论中,让大家知道除了制度建设,猪头们更关心每一个为这个论坛付出过或正在付出的人们。
对不起,你帮cello改错别字 ...
原帖由 ubuntuhk 于 19-4-2012 01:00 发表
我在帮我自己,哪天我收到这种法律文书的时候,希望能有人哪怕问候一句或者回答一句已经在内部讨论中,让大家知道除了制度建设,猪头们更关心每一个为这个论坛付出过或正在付出的人们。
对不起,你帮cello改错别字 ...
The Broadcasting Services Act (C'wlth) ("the BSA") provides a statutory defence to an ISP/ICH who carries/hosts Internet contentin Australia and who was not aware that they were carrying/hosting a defamatory publication.
Clause 91(1) of Schedule 5 to the BSA provides that a law of a State or Territory, or a rule of common law or equity, has no effect to the extent to which it:
(i) subjects, or would have the effect (whether direct or indirect) of subjecting, an internet content host/internet service provider to liability (whether criminal or civil) in respect of hosting/carrying particular internet content in a case where the host/provider was not aware of the nature of the internet content; or(ii) requires, or would have the effect (whether direct or indirect) of requiring, an internet content host/internet service provider to monitor, make inquiries about, or keep records of, internet content hosted/carried by the host/provider.The definition of "internet content" in the BSA excludes "ordinary electronic mail", information that is transmitted in the form of a broadcasting service and information that is not "kept on a data storage device". Hence, the Clause 91 defence will not be available in cases involving such material. In these cases, ISPs/ICHs may be able to rely on the defence of innocent dissemination (see below).
As at 7 January 2002, to EFA's knowledge, there had not been any court decisions involving use of the Clause 91 defence. (The defence may be considered in a case pending in the NSW Supreme Court Murphy v Stockhouse Media Pty Ltd & Ors, SC 20652 of 2000, which involves postings on an Internet bulletin board.)
The common law defence of innocent dissemination has historically applied to re-distributors such as newsagents, booksellers, libraries, etc. An ISP or ICH may also be able to rely on the common law defence of innocent dissemination in circumstances where they did not know that the publication was defamatory or likely to contain defamatory matter and their absence of knowledge was not due to negligence on their part.
Whether the common law defence of innocent dissemination can be relied upon by ISPs/ICHs has not yet been determined by Australian courts.
原帖由 cello 于 19-4-2012 10:50 发表
对啦,律师信还提及除了要求收信的24小时内删除这个帖子,还需要提供作者的联系方式。这个我更没有办法了。我不知道论坛管理员这方面能够怎么样去协助律师行这个请求。另外不知道论坛管理员是否希望获得律师行的联系 ...
原帖由 cello 于 19-4-2012 14:19 发表
这也不是办法,下架以后自然没有问题,可是上架就可能有问题。
主要是论坛谁也没有能力或资格去判断一个文章是不是完全属实,如果有这个能力恐怕比专业媒体还NB了。论坛作为平台和媒体的性质是不同的,如果有不 ...
原帖由 雅瑶冬月 于 19-4-2012 00:20 发表 [img]http://2f[/img]
出了状况,没有看见一个猪头出来问问情况,都没要求你们来拿主意了。
心寒,心冷,心死。
欢迎光临 FreeOZ论坛 (https://www.freeoz.org/bbs/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.2 |