>>Deleter cannot do the deletion that makes the infringement of right and the law.
You seem like SAMURAI, and cool! however,
I do not understand your intension.
Could you give me a reason and an example?
- 122 ： ◆MARY/2Kkkc [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 05:33:34 ID: Cwh6Szby
- >>120
>>Deleter cannot do the deletion that makes the infringement of right and the law.
You seem like SAMURAI, and cool! however,
I do not understand your intension.
Could you give me a reason and an example? - 124 ： ◆MARY/2Kkkc [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 07:03:22 ID: Cwh6Szby
- >>123
>>Deleter cannot do the deletion that makes the infringement of right and the law.
So, your meaning is that a deleter does not need to follow the law when he/she judges a deletion, but he/she must follow only a deletion policy.
The reason is because he/she is not a professional lawyer, and he/she has a legal risk since Jim is not in Japan.
Is this your intention?
What kind of a legal risk we have?
Could you give me an example? - 130 ： ◆MARY/2Kkkc [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 09:28:21 ID: Cwh6Szby
- >>125
I am not sure about it, but I do not think it is a big problem,
because I could find many web site in Japan says only "not to enter under 18 years old".
>>127
Thank you for your explanation and an example.
I still do not understand this part why is it?
"If Deleter can do a legal judgment as the site, Deleter will not be able to escape the obligation."
>The message might be a justifiable criticism.
>However, you are hesitating in whether it is a justifiable criticism or an infringement of right.
>Can you judge "Do not delete it" for this request?
>And, can you say to other Deleter, "Please have the danger"?
If the deleter is not sure, then he/she can ask a leader.
If the leader is not sure, then he/she can ask Jim.
If Jim does not delete it, then Jim gets a plaint.
The volunteer has no legal risk, here.
>>128
Very good point, Kotaro-san.
To avoid both the legal risk and illegal risk,
I suggest one volunteer obligation.
* An official volunteer must keep secret on the public about his/her contact address.
Otherwise, Jim can not prevent from someone sending a volunteer a plaint. - 133 ： ◆MARY/2Kkkc [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 12:54:19 ID: Cwh6Szby
- >>131-132
Now, finally, I think I got your intention.
I was impressed for your consideration.
So, you think a risk is generated when a deleter recognizes a writing has a violation.
I think that a risk is not generated yet, when a deleter find a writing and he does not recognizes a violation, even if it has a violation.
So, he has to delete when he is sure about a violation, but he can leave it when he is not sure.
>Can you judge "Do not delete it" for this request?
Yes, I can leave a posting, when I do not recognize it has a violation.
>And, can you say to other Deleter, "Please have the danger"?
No, I cannot say it.
I allow them to delete anytime when they recognize a violation.