New Terms of Service

I think everyone else is pretty much on track. One thing that will have some pro's and con's that I'm not rely prepared to go into on the open internet would be to make a LLC and transfer all Kiwifarms assets to it. Weather that's a good idea or not is going to depend on both your long term goals and what state you make the LLC in but I think it's worth considering.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bernard and Vitriol
Thundersteam said:
Haven't you forgotten Null physically resides in the Philippines? He's under Philippine legal jurisdiction. Cyberbullying has been a big issue in the Philippine legislature.
Click to expand...
:story::story:
Oh man,my sides,this is perfect
 
For the lawfags on this board, I have a few questions. One, who takes responsibility for quotes? If I were to quote a post from @autisticdragonkin for example, and his post was that he saw @Wildchild have sex with a dog and @Wildchild wanted to take legal action, then would I also be exposed to potential legal ramifications? How about if @autisticdragonkin made this post and then decided to change it later on, but I never modified it? Would we both still be exposed? Finally, let's say that @Clown Doll changed a post of mine to say I fuck dogs. Would he be exposed?
 
Clown Doll said:
There are ways to see who modified the posts and how, so the site administration could prove that I changed the message to read that you like to fuck dogs.
Click to expand...
But what if the site administration could not be reached by an official subpoena for evidence because we are LLC'd as 14 Branchland Ct.?
 
yawning sneasel said:
For the lawfags on this board, I have a few questions. One, who takes responsibility for quotes? If I were to quote a post from @autisticdragonkin for example, and his post was that he saw @Wildchild have sex with a dog and @Wildchild wanted to take legal action, then would I also be exposed to potential legal ramifications? How about if @autisticdragonkin made this post and then decided to change it later on, but I never modified it? Would we both still be exposed? Finally, let's say that @Clown Doll changed a post of mine to say I fuck dogs. Would he be exposed?
Click to expand...
I would never post about @Wildchild fucking dogs because then I would be posting about myself fucking dogs and then suing myself and @yawning sneasel (a great user who I don't want to sue) over it when I could just not post it
 
yawning sneasel said:
For the lawfags on this board, I have a few questions. One, who takes responsibility for quotes? If I were to quote a post from @autisticdragonkin for example, and his post was that he saw @Wildchild have sex with a dog and @Wildchild wanted to take legal action, then would I also be exposed to potential legal ramifications? How about if @autisticdragonkin made this post and then decided to change it later on, but I never modified it? Would we both still be exposed? Finally, let's say that @Clown Doll changed a post of mine to say I fuck dogs. Would he be exposed?
Click to expand...

Depends on how broadly the jurisdiction took the immunity for third party liability from § 230 of the CDA. In at least one case I can think of, in California, a court interpreted the provision broadly enough that it acted as a shield for quotes even when they were deliberately quoted to repeat allegedly defamatory content.

Barrett v. Rosenthal is the case.

edit: null was here
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Informative
Reactions: Kerfuffle
Messages have a status indicator if they've been modified by a moderator. That should be sufficient enough.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vitriol
Null said:
That should be sufficient enough.
Click to expand...
The amount of kingdoms that have sucumbed after that phrase was said, is just too big to list.

But seriously though, be careful with this deal, especially nowdays that everyone gets offended with everything and infamy is so easy to achieve, which could lead to obsessive idiots being a real hassle.
 
AnOminous said:
Depends on how broadly the jurisdiction took the immunity for third party liability from § 230 of the CDA. In at least one case I can think of, in California, a court interpreted the provision broadly enough that it acted as a shield for quotes even when they were deliberately quoted to repeat allegedly defamatory content.

Barrett v. Rosenthal is the case.

edit: null was here
Click to expand...
Informative


Null said:
Messages have a status indicator if they've been modified by a moderator. That should be sufficient enough.
Click to expand...
Not if there is a necessity for the court to see who the moderator was and what their modification had been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back