New answers tagged

5

Of course it is protected by the first amendment. Everyone in the US is protected by the first amendment. It's possible that some statements published on the site might fall afoul of any of the well established exceptions to first amendment protection, but in general the site is protected.


1

It is practically impossible to effectively enforce the radio regulations on every individual user, so it is necessary to have device manufacturers act as gatekeepers. Had the law been written to rely solely on enforcement against end users rather than manufacturers, its effectiveness would be severely degraded and we'd end up with extremely polluted radio ...


0

Because by doing so they force the manufacturers to make the anti-tampering efforts you describe In the absence of such liability, manufacturers would use standard components that make it trivially easy to make modifications. Regulators don’t want that because user modifications are less likely to comply with RF law. The radio frequency spectrum is a ...


7

Maritime law has a lot of weird rules, but the normal rule of statutory construction is that scienter requirements -- intent, knowledge, recklessness, etc. -- apply to everything that comes after them, until a new scienter requirement is stated. That would leave you with a statute looking like this: A person liable shall not be entitled to limit his ...


4

"Recklessly", which is an adverb, must modify a verb. It can only be sensibly construed as modifying "committed" – the action is committed recklessly. The clause "with the intent to cause such loss" is what is technically known as a "sister" of the clause "recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would ...


2

The last part “and with knowledge that …” should come after “recklessly” or after “committed with the intent”, or modify both? The element of "knowledge" qualifies only the "recklessly" premise. The alternative premise of "intent" already implies the person's knowledge --even if inaccurate-- that his act would cause the loss, ...


7

In the United States, a website that is labeled as parody and that a reasonable reader would, upon reflection, recognize as not stating true facts is protected under the First Amendment, so no liability will attach. The key case on this point is Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). At the time, Campari Liqueur was running an ad campaign in which ...


3

I'm wondering whos responsible for this code if people start using it? The user. Can the people using it that think its under GPL in any way get in trouble for it or be made to remove it from their projects? Yes, they can be sued (successfully) for copyright violation. It’s not enough that you think you have permission from the copyright holder - you ...


2

This (Canadian) article gives an overview of reference-letter liability. First, the writer has a duty of care to the subject of the letter. Both false statements and material omissions of true statements can cause harm, and the subject can sue over either. Stating that Smith was janitor when he was a vice president of the firm (in applying for a comparable ...


2

does a reference for a candidate employee have liability for what they say about the candidate? To my understanding lying isn't illegal. Lying is unlawful to the extent that the liar's deliberate intent to mislead other(s) causes or is likely to cause unwarranted harm. This is regardless of whether "the person acting as a reference isn't under ...


Top 50 recent answers are included