From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:11:44 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: Not a good idea...
Message-ID: <01I26T3JWQ7AAKTUL8@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)

>We need to be very careful here. A service like "SurfWatch," voluntarily
>used by others, has entered into no contracts with sites to meet defined
>standards of what should and shouldn't be blocked. It is essentially a
>"review" service, like a reviewer of books, movies, restaurants, etc. Sure,
>some books, movies, and restaurants are "hurt" by negative reviews, but
>this is life in a free society. It has not yet reached the point in these
>Beknighted States that a bad review can be the basis of a tort (though I
>could be wrong...nothing would surprise me these days).

	One wonders if an ISP (say, Prodigy or AOL) that used SurfWatch to
automatically filter everything could be liable if they filtered something
that wasn't against their policies (due to overly accepting SurfWatch's or
TimWatch's ratings) - non-provision of service? I'd guess they have some
clause or another in their normal contract w/users to try to prevent such, but
framing it so as to cover such without also basically making it a non-contract
(no agreement to provide anything) could be difficult.
	-Allen