Re: [nukkad] Queries answered

[Harshal Chhaya <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  If you are patient in one moment of anger, you will escape
a hundred days of sorrow.  - Chinese Proverb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


All,

Though this is a reply to Dr. Gupta's email, it has some 
suggestions and approaches to deal with similar situations
in the future. Please take some time to read at least the first
half of this message.



Mahesh chandra gupta wrote:
> Yet, to put the record straight, I am addressing briefly the points 
> raised by you.

Thanks.


> 1. Hitting enter key at the end of a line: 

I haven't been able to reply to that email just because of
time constraints. Nothing else. Will do so soon. 


> 2. Time and effort costs of moderation: I agree. May be the peer 
> review mechanism suggested in earlier mail meets your approval.

The peer review mechanism has always been functional. You all
have always been free (and encouraged) to let me know if something
doesn't look and feel right. I don't see any reason to specify a
hard limit (why is 10 complaints better than 5?). If I feel that
there is enough reason to notify someone, I will do so even without
any complaints. Of course, I may miss an egregiously offensive message
and will appreciate a direct, personal email about it.

BTW, the peer review mechanism will NOT solve the threat of
future lawsuits. Once a crime has been committed, denouncing 
it is pointless. Why will rebuking the member reduce or eliminate
my (or his/her) legal liability?


The only thing that will avoid flare-ups in the future is ignoring
obviously inflammatory messages. Most of us now know each other's
views on religion and related issues. We may not agree with each other
but I hope we at least respect the right to have differing views.

The problem is that the more vocal ones among us don't ignore 
some of the obvious baiting. The recent problem is a classic 
case-in-point. A brand new member whom we knew nothing about 
posts an inflammatory message. Instead of ignoring him and his 
bait, some subscribers immediately take sides and start the same 
old routine. Pretty soon, the situation is out of hand and we have 
the CBI being invoked. 

How difficult is it to take a couple of minutes to think, calm 
down and not respond to each and every provocation?

Some random stranger spouting his views on a list do not make
them true or your views any less important.


 
> 4. Mutiny is not a precursor to sedition. 

You are right. I wrongly used mutiny as a weak synonym for sedition.


> 5. You state: “Consider this analogy:
> I own a printing press that I want the public to use. So I 
 
> Let me state at the outset that we are neither quarelling, nor arguing. 
> This is academic discussion, meant to learn from each other, both from 
> different knowledge backgrounds. 

I agree with both sentences. I am very curious about the applicability
of real-world laws to cyberspace. My interest is fuelled because I
am directly affected by this. I have been following the legal 
profession's struggles to come to grips with the concept of online 
resources for the past few years. The vastly different concepts 
of property (a web site is not the same as a physical location) 
and jurisdiction (do national laws apply? or state laws? or municipal 
laws? or none because there is no physical location in cyberspace?) 
among others make this very interesting.

Applying current laws to cyberspace requires some considerable expansion 
to the intent of the laws and/or attempts to map the online world to 
our real world. The result is often clumsy and unsatisfactory.


> Please take my word that in the analogy quoted by you, you are 100% 
> liable in law, whether as author, publisher, printer,distributor, 
> facilitator, moderator or owner or whatever.  

If so, I will have to believe Charles Dickens' views on the law.

My view on this specific scenario stems from the fact the similar 
lawsuits have been brought against companies in the US and Europe. 
I realise that Indian law is different from US or German law so 
all this may be pointless. But the judges in these cases used 
existing laws and definitions to characterise the actions of the 
accused. It is in these cases that the clear separation between 
'distributor' and 'publisher' was established. 

The existance of case-law makes me confident that a case like
the one you were talking about would fail in US courts. Of course,
Indian courts and Indian law is a whole different animal. 

 
> This will be poor defence in law. If I have a car whose brakes 
> are faulty, without my knowledge, and give it to a friend for drving, 
> and he meets an accident or causes accident to somebody, I would be 
> squarely liable in law. Again, take my word or discuss later.

I will take your word as far as my liability as the car-owner goes.
However, I don't think that your example fits this situation. If
you think it does, we will have to agree to disagree.

Regards,
Harshal


-- 
 http://www.mumbai-central.com : Where Mumbaikars meet


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, use the form at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/#options
This list is archived at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html