Unlike most who got caught up in the "stink" - and vigorously jumped on the band wagon to protest a ruling by the court that permitted a plaintiff to sue Craig's List - I sighed a breath of relief.
The litigant took the action because bogus ads were posted on the site with his name which ended up causing the gentleman undue stress, anxiety, and to be harassed and embarrassed at his home.
"I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so," I found myself muttering with glee one day when the news splashed at lightning speed around the Internet a nano-second or two ahead of the mainstream press.
For good reason!
Over a year ago, when racy ads bordering on porno began to flourish boldly and blatantly on the site - hinting at shocking trends on the rise left unchecked - a lawsuit was filed to curb what some perceived as outright smut on Craig's List.
On the heels of the allegations that the owner's were remiss in their legal and moral responsibility to monitor the offending ads (which promoted illegal goods and services) the owners had the audacity to argue that they were just providing a free public space for consumers to advertise their events, rent their apartments, and ply their - um - wares.
The idea of imposing rules and regulations was simply barbaric - or a rights violation - in their demented minds perhaps?
Personally, I laughed at the notion.
For starters, the innovative site - which roared to phenomenal success world-wide from the proverbial get-go - didn't just appear out of thin air one fine day.
Surely, you'll concur, that the individuals who masterminded and constructed Craig's List, should be held accountable for their creation (especially when things go awry or bump in the night).
Notwithstanding - the idea of providing a forum where Internet users have no available recourse to rectify a wrong should it rear its ugly head (especially in this instant case where criminal activity may harm innocent members of the community-at-large) is totally un-American in concept and flies in the face of common sense.
Needless to say, in view of the foregoing arguments, I assumed that the court would issue a ruling to curb the activity and demand responsible action in respect to the monitoring of the Craig's List site.
Wrong!
I was literally stunned when the ruling came down last year.
In the final analysis, the Justices found merit in their arguments - and summarily - let Craig's list owners off-the-hook.
At the time, I penned a post in protest, essentially lamenting that the Justices got it all wrong.
The arguments fell on deaf ears, 'til now.
This past week, the court essentially ruled (if you read between the lines) that an injured party may sue for damages sustained due to willful neglect and the failure of a party to act responsibly in a civilized society.
Amen!
http://www.thetattler.biz/
No comments:
Post a Comment