> I disagree, in fact, the opposite is true. Right now, it is impossible > to look at Freegle without seeing porn everywhere, whether you are > looking for it or not. If it is possible to ask not to see the porn, > then the only people who see it, will be the people who ask to see it. > Thus, if someone says "Hey, Freegle is full of porn!" then we can say > "if you don't like it, you don't have to see it" - but right now, we > can't.
That's unrelated to my point. My point is that if you add filtering then you lose safe harbor status. If someone says "I demand you filter out X", it's one thing to say "My software merely aggregates user-submitted keys and allows searching of this database. The software does not have the capability to filter entries, so I cannot filter X." and it's another thing to say "Although my software does filter things, I decline to filter X." It's up to the site maintainer as to which approach he thinks will cause him less hassle. However, U.S. legal precedent has tended towards the rule that if you censor anything then you are taking responsibility for everything else on your site and giving it an implicit stamp of approval. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl >From - Tue Apr 17 23:57:17 2001 Return-Path: <devl-admin at freenetproject.org> Received: from hawk.freenetproject.org (postfix@[4.18.42.11]) by funky.danky.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA14699 for <danello at danky.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:02:44 -0400 Received: from hawk.freenetproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hawk.freenetproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE70058185; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
