[thelist] Legality issues re: online community calendar

[the head lemur]

> I maintain a calendar of community events for a non-profit client.  Some
of
> the events we post on our calendar involve nudity, alcohol, things like
> that. Fetish shows, 21+ clubs, etc.  Could my client at any point be held
> liable for listing these events on its website, if for some reason someone
> heard about the event through our website, and something bad happened to
> them at the event?  Has anyone encountered a situation like this?

Holy Paranoia mongrel!!

i am not a lawyer...i just work hard to pay them:)

Monday I would have said no.
Tuesday I would have said no.
Wednesday I would have said no.



Once somebody decides or is induced into one of these silly lawsuits, the
first thing is called 'joint and several liability',
http://www.injuryboard.com/tort8.cfm .
This means that the lawyer will serve papers on everybody connnected
(regardless of how tenous the connection) with the event, in an effort to
shake the money tree without actually having to go to court.

In the first place, a listing is information, and not a commandment, nor an
inducement, unless the site has a money off coupon. Even here the link is a
bit of a stretch.


The nature of the Internet and publically available pages has given us an
incredible variety of information and data. Because of the concept of
"community standards" which has been the stake in the heart of Adult
businesses across the world, by virtue of the "Community" deciding where
such businesses will be located or if they are even available. The Internet
has thrown this concept out the window as I can be in Abstinence, Kansas and
view and download porno from Korea to the limits of my harddrive.



Thursday I would have to say I'm not sure.

'Australia's highest court has ruled that a man in Melbourne can sue Dow
Jones for an article posted on the company's site but not actually printed
in Australia'

Australian court's upside-down Internet ruling
<http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/
dan_gillmor/4719319.htm>

2. "The edition of Barron's Online for 28 October 2000 (and the equivalent
edition of the magazine which bore the date 30 October 2000) contained an
article entitled "Unholy Gains" in which several references were made to the
respondent, Mr Joseph Gutnick. Mr Gutnick contends that part of the article
defamed him."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html

What is so potentially destructive about this is not Gutnick's whining about
defamation, but that the suit is being allowed to be heard. One of the
STANDARD clauses in any contract is the 'Applicable Law and Juristictional
Matters' portion of the contract.

This outlines where you can sue me as a result of our not working out our
differences. In my case, it's Phoenix, Arizona. So if you want a piece of
me, come on down! the weather is great!

(This is one of the reasons that developers really really want to have a
contract!)

By allowing this to stand, this will probably create the end of the Web, as
sitting at my desk, some bottom feeder can decide that they want to sue me
somewhere in China. In my case, I will be happy to respond, I'll just send
my bankruptcy papers with the acknowledgment of service.

And will make your lawsuit fears into a real possibility.

the head lemur
News: http://www.lemurzone.com/news/
Interviews: http://www.lemurzone.com/pixelview/
Standards: http://webstandards.org
Community: http://www.evolt.org