Those were on two separate lines. You are talking about 1.2.2. 1.2.1 just states abusive, obscene, pornographic, defamatory etc etc but doesnt mention protected classes. I would see this as being harassing/defamatory/threatening right?
Ah my mistake, 1.2.2 is the Title VII protection. 1.2.1 might work if there is evidence of abuse or harassment stemming from the website.
I still think 1.2.4 is a better case though, because what qualifies as "abuse" or "harassment" is left up to the court. If you get a leftist judge, kiss that lawsuit goodbye. But, personal injury or property damage is far easier to prove to the extent that the suit can't be dismissed
Those were on two separate lines. You are talking about 1.2.2. 1.2.1 just states abusive, obscene, pornographic, defamatory etc etc but doesnt mention protected classes. I would see this as being harassing/defamatory/threatening right?
Ah my mistake, 1.2.2 is the Title VII protection. 1.2.1 might work if there is evidence of abuse or harassment stemming from the website.
I still think 1.2.4 is a better case though, because what qualifies as "abuse" or "harassment" is left up to the court. If you get a leftist judge, kiss that lawsuit goodbye. But, personal injury or property damage is far easier to prove to the extent that the suit can't be dismissed
You don't need to convince a judge, just the site host.
Spez: Well, probably their lawyers.