Site Commentary From Outside The Box - Page 3 - Diesel Forum

**KINGTUT** · 09-25-2005, 10:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It would be more than interesting to see chapter and verse on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is not "chapter and verse" THIS may be helpful to you in understanding just how complex the legal issues are concerning website liability. I have a healthy respect for the ability of the Feds to act rather arbitrarily and therefore strongly understand the Webmasters decisions relating to this banned subject.

rmyers2051 · 09-26-2005, 07:05 AM

I may be reading the link all wrong but down near the bottom, example #1 sort of loosely states that if you are not monitoring the website then you cannot be held responsible. However the more tightly you monitor and control the larger your direct responsibility is. Catch 22? Once you start then the tighter it must become.

roofeditor · 09-26-2005, 07:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I may be reading the link all wrong but down near the bottom, example #1 sort of loosely states that if you are not monitoring the website then you cannot be held responsible. However the more tightly you monitor and control the larger your direct responsibility is. Catch 22? Once you start then the tighter it must become.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what it says. By "having" moderators you are now held to a "higher standard". So Jason could limit his liability by not having moderators and not having any rules other than basic prohibition of illegal actions.

**KINGTUT** · 09-26-2005, 09:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]

So Jason could limit his liability by not having moderators and not having any rules other than basic prohibition of illegal actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that would be the end of the quality of this website and everyone knows it. Only a foolish person would turn their hard earned product over to the whims of the internet. By tightly controlling the content, it is my opinion that the site owners are creating a very good defense to any action that could be brought and as well are maintaining the business objectives of the site. It is somewhat of a catch 22, so to speak. However faced with the choice of turning over a product to the internet world without limitation or using all due diligence to prohibit specified discussions, I think the choice would be clear to any businessman. This site has made a wise choice to prohibit discussion by users that could be interpreted as facilitating, explaining, or informing other users how to illegally defeat Federally mandated devices or how to eliminate or modify them.
The wise decision is not always the popular one.

VIZARD · 09-26-2005, 10:57 AM

First off KINGTUT, thank you for the info. I imagine finding that took more than just a small amount of research.

At first blush one would first have say it would be incumbent on site management to take one of two action steps to insulate them from potential liability. Either become less restrictive with the primary mission to enforce rules against illegal postings that could deemed defamatory. In addition, not allowing the posting of child porn. But, basically allowing open discussions with little to no moderation than for that already mentioned.

The other position would be to escalate monitoring with very specific rules / guidelines to disallow the discussion of any and all activities that are deemed to be illegal. Naturally, this condition would risk funding by many sponsors and the certain substantial loss of site membership participation.

Either of these positions, IMO, would be a first blush / knee jerk reaction.

Let's look a further into the article:

The content about copyright liability is a given.

As is the posting of child porn.

Defamation liability, according to this article, is not clearly defined...so defaming individuals, products, mfgs, etc., could have the potential to open the site to a civil complaint.

The following item seems most related to this discussion:

4. Review the User Agreement. Provisions enabling websites to blacklist subscribers or edit content based on subjective or arbitrary standards provide strong evidence of the site.s right and ability to control its users and their content. Thus, user agreements should only prohibit users from engaging in conduct that is illegal or tortious, or that interferes with the technological operation of the site.

My personal interpretation? This item, rightfully, addresses actual illegal activities utilizing the web site as a vehicle to conduct such activities as those noted in the content of the article.

It does not address, in any form, the discussion of activities as it pertains to TDS or any other like interactive web site. I have yet to read anything that that would cause me to believe that the mere discussion of the disabling of EGR Valves, speed limiters, or cat deletes, etc., would expose anyone to any financial liability.

While the perpetration of these acts may be illegal...the discussion of such would not and, again, is not addressed in this article.

With that said, my comments are strictly my opinion and should not construed to be a legal interpretation in any way and certainly are not intended to be representative of the views or opinions of TDS. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]

**KINGTUT** · 09-26-2005, 12:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
First off KINGTUT, thank you for the info. I imagine finding that took more than just a small amount of research.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually as one would assume it took very little effort to locate that article. Please understand that this article is not the definitive statement of the law in this area, it should not be taken to make determinations on what conduct is legal or illegal. It is a short informative blurb outlining some of the topical legal issues involved. If you want to research this area in full detail I can supply you with hours of complex legal information regarding the same. However, for the purposes of this discussion I felt this short simple article illuminated the potential for risk. All business people are always looking to limit risk.
I just have to disagree with your entire premise that the site can not be potentially held liable for allowing discussion that potentially facilitates illegal acts, especially when those illegal acts are potentially violations of Federal Law and backed by a Justice Department with limitless resources and arbitrary policies (not a political statement it has been like that forever). The first amendment and free speech is not relevant to this issue, never has been. If it is an open question as to legal liability in this regard, and it certainly is a very open legal question, why take the chance only to appease a certain segment of the membership who are interested in these illegal activities. I would suggest that the vast majority of those that are members here would not even consider most of the modifications, etc. that are being discussed, especially if their vehicle is still in warranty. I do realize that there are many here who take their vehicles from the lot to their garage and change everything they can possibly change, including tampering and modifying federally mandated devices. They do have the right to do that in the privacy of their garage, and the risk they have is dealing with the authorities if they get caught. A small fine probably, however on a larger scale such as with a web site the potential risk is much higher. I don't have anything else much to add to this discussion, but I am glad we had it. Thanks

JimmyDee · 09-26-2005, 12:21 PM

If I understand correctly what Higgins is saying, is, Jason is right on so we need to just do what is best for the site, follow the rules so it can go on unencumbered by those that might have the power to shut it down and cause Jason a ton of financial problems. ? Seems simple enough to me.
Jim
BTW, good to see you back KingTut

VIZARD · 09-26-2005, 12:27 PM

KINGTUT, thank you again for your perspective. This has been a great discussion. Your input is greatly appreciated. If we all agreed it would not be much of a discussion.

If your premise is to be correct, then the logical conclusion would be for the site to conduct extreme moderation and not allow any discussion that could lead to any illegal activity. City, county, state, Feds etc.. Yes?

Because I respect your opinion...I am curious then as to what your thoughts are regarding the elimination of all topics, here, that could lead the site to exposure of liability. Specifically regarding the modifications (as previously noted in this thread)
that could be deemed unlawful or non-compliant.

I am not asking for legal authority here. Just your opinion.

Thanks

roofeditor · 09-26-2005, 12:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
KINGTUT, thank you again for your perspective. This has been a great discussion. Your input is greatly appreciated. If we all agreed it would not be much of a discussion.

If your premise is to be correct, then the logical conclusion would be for the site to conduct extreme moderation and not allow any discussion that could lead to any illegal activity. City, county, state, Feds etc.. Yes?

Because I respect your opinion...I am curious then as to what your thoughts are regarding the elimination of all topics, here, that could lead the site to exposure of liability. Specifically regarding the modifications (as previously noted in this thread)
that could be deemed unlawful or non-compliant.

I am not asking for legal authority here. Just your opinion.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

So there should be no talk about the tuners, and go fast boxes, Injectors, bigger turbos, Propane, nitrous, Intake systems, possibly exhaust systems that are sold HERE and are the life blood of supporting the site? Be careful what you and Higgins wish for! Once you open this box it may be impossible to shut it. It may end the site which is funded by those many illegal items sold HERE. Think!!!

VIZARD · 09-26-2005, 01:02 PM

Actually, if the law is as has been presented here, then the only interest is to protect the site from legal liability. As they have previously stated is their reason / justification for the deletion of some but, not all, vehicle modification discussions.

The law is the law. The amount of risk exposure would be up to any site management entity. Whether it be TDS or some other site. Are some discussions of illegal activity and / or non-compliance OK? Is some liability OK? Kinda like being almost pregnant. Is you is or is you isn't.

Regardless, kudos and thanks to site management for allowing this discussion. From the looks of the hits it has made for an interesting read.

In addition, my comments here have not been intended to cause any pain or suffering to the site management or anyone else. It was just intended to share some thoughts, from someone new to TDS and outside the box, regarding concerns already noted by long time members.

Thanks

BEECHBM69 · 09-26-2005, 01:45 PM

Vizard, Kingtut,

First off, thank you both for your enlightened insight. This thread has shown discussions of volitile matters can indeed be conducted in a civilized fashion. Everyone involved should be acknowledged, moderators and all [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]

Now, on to my question. And this is merely to satisfy my own curiousity, as I am one of the shadetree mechanics using this resource. As we know, there are many people who tow these trucks to racetracks (ok, reaching a little bit [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) and run in sanctioned, supervised, off road events. Would the liability issues be eliminated to an extent or altogether, if a forum was created addressing off highway, racetrack racing. If someone were to take this knowledge, and apply it in an area that is not appropriate , (ie. a street legal truck) would TDS be liable? Drag racing and building dragsters is not illigal, running them down the highway is the rub.

I wish to clarify, I in no way advocate Jason doing this unless he sees fit, I was just curious as to what the collective thinks with regard to the legal exposure issues. Again, thank you all for your time and insight.

Regards,

Dan

roofeditor · 09-26-2005, 05:09 PM

Are some discussions of illegal activity and / or non-compliance OK? Is some liability OK? Kinda like being almost pregnant. Is you is or is you isn't.

That is the point.....you can't have it both ways.

JLester · 09-26-2005, 05:36 PM

Guys,

Thanks for all the discussion. You've brought up some interesting points. It is nice when people are able to discuss things intelligently and back up their arguments without getting personal.

I guess my point is not so much illegal vs legal modifications as much as what I myself are comfortable with hosting. There are some things (legal or not) that I'm not comfortable with publishing on my site. As some have mentioned, the emissions regs are very very difficult to make much sense of. They are even contradictory in some cases. If you read them in some ways, they don't seem to even apply to our trucks.

As for the other points about moderated vs unmoderated, common carrier status, etc., I don't think anyone has ever been successful making the common carrier argument for a website. It is even unclear whether ISPs even fall under that. Telephone companies do, but ISPs are not that cut and dried. I don't know of any successful forums that are entirely unmoderated. The USENET newsgroups were great years ago when everyone played nice. They are now just a dumping ground for all sorts of garbage for the most part. The reason we have the statement about reserving the right to delete any message posted is to protect ourselves from publishing copyrighted material, pornography, threats, harassments, (or any other thing I don't want to publish), etc.

For now, we will continue not allowing discussions of removing catalytic converters or EGRs. We are giving serious consideration to adding an off-road forum for discussing modifications that aren't street legal. I hope to make a final decision on that later this week. We will not however allow discussion of street racing.

VIZARD · 09-26-2005, 07:01 PM

Thanks for your review of the discussion and being of open mind. It has been refreshing that so many posts went so well with many differing views.

If nothing else, this thread is evidence that it is possible.

Good luck with your decision process. Change is not easy, from either side of the fence.

roofeditor · 09-26-2005, 07:23 PM

For now, we will continue not allowing discussions of removing catalytic converters or EGRs. We are giving serious consideration to adding an off-road forum for discussing modifications that aren't street legal. I hope to make a final decision on that later this week. We will not however allow discussion of street racing.

Good move...it will end this (or in theory should) constant dichotomy.