3 ms·

Jesus that's so repressive. And I'm sure the laws are pretty subjective as well or at least not something the average chat admin is fully up to speed with. Ess

Jesus that's so repressive. And I'm sure the laws are pretty subjective as well or at least not something the average chat admin is fully up to speed with. Essentially the outcome of this will be to kill chats or send it underground to tor or something.

marian0_ 9y ago
In Spain, you as a website admin can be found liable for unlawful messages left by your users too. So it's not like this is unexpectedly repressive for me. A verdict that shows so: http://www.asesoriayempresas.es/jurisprudencia/JURIDICO/195962/sentencia-ts-128-2013-sala-1-de-26-de-febrero-derecho-al-honor-comentarios-ofensivos-insertos http://www.asesoriayempresas.es/jurisprudencia/JURIDICO/1959...
- nawitus 9y ago
  Also true for Finland.
  - tobijkl 9y ago
    Also true for Germany.
    - Cyph0n 9y ago
      Also true for basically every Gulf country, but slightly more repressive.
- bsder 9y ago
  I presume that "unlawful" is a bit more circumscribed in Spain than in China. Taking the article's example, would you be liable for ranting about a drunk driving checkpoint being a shakedown?
- notgood 9y ago
  Not really, it says: "Conocimiento efectivo por la demandada del contenido de los comentarios alojados por terceras personas en su web. Remisión de fax en el que se advierte de la existencia de estas comunicaciones lesivas al honor del demandante: Al rehusar este fax la demandada incumple su deber de diligencia." Which translates: "Effective knowledge by the plaintiff of the stored messages by third-parties on his website. Fax receiving in which [the admin] was informed of the lascivious messages to the plaintiff. By refusing the FAX the defendant breaches his duty of diligence" So this case was about sexual comments against a specific person for which the owner of the site refused to delete such comments; so little to nothing to do with censoring messages against the state.
mirimir 9y ago
Well, then, owners, admins and mods just need to be anonymous and untraceable. Users too, of course. So yeah, Tor or something stronger :)
- drdaeman 9y ago
  I don't think it's about anonymous chats, though (AFAIK they're were made illegal in China for some time, just like anonymous commenting). Probably about chats where users know each other. And it doesn't work if there's a snitch among the peers. For the smaller casual "circle of acquaintances (relatives, friends, coworkers, gaming teammates, etc)" chats, there should be no owner, though - small non-public invite-only communities work perfectly well without administration. This doesn't solve "poster is responsible" but it solves "owner is responsible". For larger or open chats - yes, the owner should be someone pseudonymous (or just a robot).

marian0_ 9y ago

In Spain, you as a website admin can be found liable for unlawful messages left by your users too. So it's not like this is unexpectedly repressive for me. A verdict that shows so: http://www.asesoriayempresas.es/jurisprudencia/JURIDICO/195962/sentencia-ts-128-2013-sala-1-de-26-de-febrero-derecho-al-honor-comentarios-ofensivos-insertos http://www.asesoriayempresas.es/jurisprudencia/JURIDICO/1959...

nawitus 9y ago
Also true for Finland.
- tobijkl 9y ago
  Also true for Germany.
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    Also true for basically every Gulf country, but slightly more repressive.
bsder 9y ago
I presume that "unlawful" is a bit more circumscribed in Spain than in China. Taking the article's example, would you be liable for ranting about a drunk driving checkpoint being a shakedown?
notgood 9y ago
Not really, it says: "Conocimiento efectivo por la demandada del contenido de los comentarios alojados por terceras personas en su web. Remisión de fax en el que se advierte de la existencia de estas comunicaciones lesivas al honor del demandante: Al rehusar este fax la demandada incumple su deber de diligencia." Which translates: "Effective knowledge by the plaintiff of the stored messages by third-parties on his website. Fax receiving in which [the admin] was informed of the lascivious messages to the plaintiff. By refusing the FAX the defendant breaches his duty of diligence" So this case was about sexual comments against a specific person for which the owner of the site refused to delete such comments; so little to nothing to do with censoring messages against the state.

mirimir 9y ago

Well, then, owners, admins and mods just need to be anonymous and untraceable. Users too, of course. So yeah, Tor or something stronger :)

drdaeman 9y ago
I don't think it's about anonymous chats, though (AFAIK they're were made illegal in China for some time, just like anonymous commenting). Probably about chats where users know each other. And it doesn't work if there's a snitch among the peers. For the smaller casual "circle of acquaintances (relatives, friends, coworkers, gaming teammates, etc)" chats, there should be no owner, though - small non-public invite-only communities work perfectly well without administration. This doesn't solve "poster is responsible" but it solves "owner is responsible". For larger or open chats - yes, the owner should be someone pseudonymous (or just a robot).