Mr. Obvious wrote:I am not OK with holding the Brojos responsible for the content of my speech, or your speech on this website. They are not responsible. I am. You are. Holding the Brojo's responsible seems like holding the owner of a printing press responsible for liable, rather then the author of a work.
Okay, I think I agree with everything you said before this paragraph (just wanted to say that so it doesn't appear that I am ignoring the good points you are making.)
I think I even agree with this paragraph, but the analogy confuses me. We are talking about cases in which the author is actually anonymous, so they cannot be held responsible for liable. Should the folks who made the choice to create those conditions of anonymity then be held responsible? My guess is that you say no. I'd probably say no, too, at least not entirely.
But it seems there is a certain precedent for this. You might not hold them fully responsible, but responsible as an accessory because they created a situation that they new could (and a reasonable person might even say would eventually) be exploited. Sort of like a reckless endangerment charge.
Maybe?
I dunno--I feel like I am losing steam with these arguments.