"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> Presumably they make some representation somewhere - in the manual? -
> about what they block or why?
"What they block" does not seem to be defamation, it seems to be freedom of
choice. The way I understand it, a defamation claim would have to be based on
a two-part test: (a) they have to publicly report "who they block" (so, there is
cause for action by someone in that list) and (b) they have to say they do it for a
reason considered to be derogatory, offensive, etc. (so, there is actually
defamation).
Thus, "why they block" (the reason, item b above) alone cannot be defamation
either, IMO, because they do not report who they block.
Otherwise, we would support the funny idea that someone could suffer defamation
without ever being reported by any means. A very contradiction with the
word "fame" (report) in defamation.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Ed Gerck wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> >
> > > I think there may be a claim in defamation if your site was blocked and
> > > the software claims you have some kind of nasty content...
> >
> > But, what happens (as is the case) when that software claims nothing...
> > you cannot even view what is being blocked. A defamation claim IMO
> > would require others seeing a disclosure of the site's name in a blocking list
> > ... hmmm, that is perhaps why they do not disclose (even to parents?).
> >
> > Anyway, the idea of blocking and not even telling you what is being
> > blocked is a "trust me" procedure -- a well-known nothing. Trust me ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ed Gerck
> >
> >
