From: "Martin Diehl" <mdiehl@dttus.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 09:52:08 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Vexatious Litigants  (was: SurfWatch)
Message-ID: <9602088263.AA826327118@cc1.dttus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Henry Huang <hwh6k@fulton.seas.virginia.edu> at INTERNET-USA wrote:
> On Mar 7, 22:29, Timothy C. May wrote: 
> > At 2:38 AM 3/8/96, Bill Frantz wrote:
> > >At  6:59 PM 3/7/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
> > >>If SurfWatch can be sued for a "bad review," then Siskel and Ebert 
> > >>had better find a new line of work.
> > >
> > >As long as a reviewer corrects errors, as SurfWatch seems to be 
> > >willing to do, I think they are relatively suit-proof.  If they don't, 
> > >well - anyone can be sued for anything.  I'll let the lawyers comment 
> > >on the possibility of success.
>
[snip]


> Thanks for the clarification.  However, this line of argument applies
> only to "third-party" ratings systems.  Right now,
> Microsoft/RSAC/SurfWatch and SafeSurf/Cybersitter/etc. are setting up 
> competing standards which would essentially force people to 
> "self-rate" their own sites, or else be blocked out by browsers 
> configured to reject unrated sites (a feature Microsoft plans to add 
> to its Internet Explorer).

> The question I have is if these systems were widely implemented, could 
> an Web page author or provider of content be sued for "mislabeling" 
> their page?  If so, under what circumstances?  Could the RSAC attach 
> legal requirements to the use of their system, and open up such a 
> loophole (similar to how Sun attaches conditions to the use of its 
> "Java" logo)?

     Seems to me that if the Web page author labels his page 
     conservatively, i. e. "materials may be unsuitable for non-adults; may 
     contain controversial material, may contain views different from your 
     own, etc.".  How can the author be liable for mislabeling?  
     
     Martin G. Diehl