Why don't you cite the law that makes this policy illegal? Section 230 of the Communications Decency act protects the owners of a website who publish information provided by others.
There have been a number of court cases involving ponzis on the forum and theymos (or the forum) were not held liable
There have been a number of court cases involving ponzis on the forum and theymos (or the forum) were not held liable
Not sure if you're intentionally missing the point. The case law cited in your wiki article does not address knowingly facilitating illegal activities.
In other words, a website allowing users to post pictures & being 95% child porn is not going to benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Regardless of disclaimers.
Oh, let me see... Let's start with the gambling section.
There's the Interstate Wire Act, that goes something like this:
Quote
Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
there's also Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, a plethora more. Plenty of things this forum can go down for, a veritable grab bag.
Still wanna to go there?
Quote
Re. bitcointalk lawsuits: not you're referring to (links?), but the fact that theymos has not been charged with anything merely proves that bitcointalk is much more useful as a honypot, a place that a couple of fat LEO could monitor from the comfort of their office.
And providing a perfect paper trail to second-rate conmen, should their scams warrant sufficient interest.
As long as theymos cooperates, everything's fine. Thus far, he's been cooperative
I don't see your point here. So what if the forum is a de-facto honeypot? Don't break the law?And providing a perfect paper trail to second-rate conmen, should their scams warrant sufficient interest.
As long as theymos cooperates, everything's fine. Thus far, he's been cooperative
edit: link to case regarding illegal activity on the forum
Bitcointalk was not on the wrong side of the letter v. In the case you cited, it was Mr. Shavers.
I've pointed out that a street dealer being allowed to run around on the loose does not imply that dealing dope is legal.
It only implies that (a) he hasn't been popped yet, or (b) he's more useful to LEO as a snitch.
That's all.