VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:49:54 06/20/02 Thu
Author: Melle
Subject: Re: ::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!::
In reply to: angela 's message, "::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!::" on 21:40:43 06/19/02 Wed

Okay, first of all, thank you. No, really, no sarcasm there. I've been having this discussion for the better part of three years, and this is the first time I've heard an argument I hadn't seen before. :) Anyway.

Light>

Hm, well I'm not all that sure RPF would qualify for either 1) or 4), but you do have a point. However, that legal risk is for us to take. I own what is possibly the biggest geared-towards-hosting-RPF domain out there, and I *know* I'm taking a risk. But that's my risk to take.

Reccing a story to someone does not put that someone in danger. Hell, I have serious doubts that even *reading* said story would put people at risk, but I'm not a lawyer. Like Kate said, it's not really about (the legalities of) RPF, but about whether people are allowed to impose their moral standards on everyone else on a *recc list*.

(I also have serious doubts anyone would ever sue over RPF, if only becuase it would give the story more publicity. But that's me.)

>It doesn't matter if it is knowingly false. See above.

Not in this case, no, but relating to the post I was replying to, it did. :)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> Re: ::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!:: -- angela, 11:42:33 06/20/02 Thu

Seriously not sarcastic? Anyway, I'm one of the moderators of the list, and while I don't give a rat's ass about what is or isn't rec'd (I generally only care if enough information is given for when we post a link to something) - I'm trying to look at the future consequences of allowing it and am worried about what would happen if RPF got enough recs to make it into the archive we've been building. I know you said you run a RPF archive and you're aware of the legalities, but I'm not sure if our host would be willing to take that risk, and I don't know if I'm prepared to ask her to do so.

I mean, what would you say if we allowed RPF, but then said it wasn't going to be archived, no matter how many people loved a particular story? That's still pretty biased against RPF. I don't know. Sigh. What's the saying? You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time?


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!:: -- Melle, 09:09:31 06/24/02 Mon

>Seriously not sarcastic?

Seriously. ^_^

>I know you said you
>run a RPF archive and you're aware of the legalities,
>but I'm not sure if our host would be willing to take
>that risk, and I don't know if I'm prepared to ask her
>to do so.

And I'm not saying you should. I mean, yeah, I've got a huge (150+ MB) domain, mostly full of RPS, but that's me. I'm not exactly known for my carefulness, and also, I'm Belgium, our webhost is Brazillian, and most celebrities are American, so I honestly don't even know which laws we'd fall under.

Er, point: whether or not to have RPF on your website is a decision that's, presumable, made mostly for legal reasons. It's not necessarily discriminating, but mostly just a rational decision. But if you have a recc list, and you say people can recc *any*thing, regardless of BDSM/rape/death content, *then* it's discrimination to say "You can recc anything, except *that*."

>I mean, what would you say if we allowed RPF, but then
>said it wasn't going to be archived, no matter how
>many people loved a particular story? That's still
>pretty biased against RPF.

Well, yes, I'd feel that way. But you know, at least that's an actual compromise. "Only RPF without smut" isn't a compromise, it's discrimination not only against RPF, but also against smut. It somehow gives the impression that smut is bad, or worse, or. Something.

(Not entirely clear-headed right now, sorry. If I'm confusing, just make me repeat this. :)


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.