Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
Using this logic with Google, someone could put up a CP forum and let users post pics. They can't reasonably be expected to stop it, they aren't putting it up.
|
The "logic" you are talking about is exactly the same logic that the government has been using all along.
AOL cannot be held responsible for hosting a CP forum if they respond to complaints and remove the illegal content when they become aware of it.
If you set up a forum with the main intent of allowing people to break the law, then of course you could be held responsible for it. Look what happened to Napster. Google does not do what they do with the intent of linking to or hosting illegal images. It happens sometimes, but it is not the intent.
If Lensman setup this forum for adult webmasters to do legal business, and some webmaster, without his knowledge, posted a photo without 2257, that would be seen differently than if someone set up a forum to post illegal CP content.
This exemption from liability is not new in any way, they are just applying it to 2257 in the same way it's been applied to other content in the past.
Some of you are acting like this is a new idea.