This Mod needs some help, important question

Status
Not open for further replies.
didn't think this belonged here either..
[ 24 January 2003: Message edited by: alert ]
 
Originally posted by miamistu:
My replies assumed you were talking abouta (harm reduction site). I agree, a generic IRC probably still wouldnt be liable (crimianlly or civilly). But for the reasons posted above, the chatters or a (harm reduction site) might be. Especially if theres an angry prosecutor on a mission.
[]
Let me stress again this didn't happen on bluelight, but lets expand on these theories. My ultimate mission is to develop a policy to deal with a similar situation and clarify the legal position of harm reduction sites, so how might the posters and site be liable? (other than your above examples, and do we think they could make those charges stick). And lets talk about what policy the site might adopt to prevent liability. Again, be creative with facts if you want, add or subtract, whatever you want.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by ~*JungleFaerie*~:
even if one were to call 911
how would they find this person?
Lets say they had his cell phone #, he posted it in chat.
Click to expand...
 
As for whether a BBS like Bluelight could be held responsible, there was the hitman case a few years ago, which is of a related concept (can an information provider be liable for death resulting from that information), but it settled: http://www.die.net/prose/hitman/
In accordance with what was said above re: napster, it may be possible to hold a BBS like Bluelight liable since they are aware of the information on the site, and knew or should have known that it could lead to drug use.
There may be case law on this topic, but I don't have time to do any research for a while, but I'm curious to see what other people think. The napster cases would be a good place to start, as would the fsupp2d case I cited above.
 
It looks as if though this wasnt a hypothetical question... too bad that had to happen.
 
Since I think I know what situation this thread is referring to, I do not think there is any way the girl who called poison control could be held liable or face any kind of charges. She was one of maybe 2 people in that chat who was actaully trying to help at all. Plus, she plainly said that she had "talked her way out of" the 911 call, so she let everyone know that she had abandoned the rescue attempt.
Certain other people in the chat seem like they are much more likely to possibly face some kind of charges, since they actually talked via phone to the person who ODed. Very curious to see the outcome of this one. :\
At least the person who tried to help can have something of a clear conscious, since it appears there was really nothing she could do.
--C
 
^^^ Agreed, I just finished looking over the chat log and it's pretty sad. His mom was just in the next room...
It sounded like he was trying to show off in front of this crowd via webcam and even after some of the people saw him take his dose,they still egged him on and said that he was a pussy. I wonder what will happen to the people that did not call for help or anything..
 
Originally posted by Trancendance:

In accordance with what was said above re: napster, it may be possible to hold a BBS like Bluelight liable since they are aware of the information on the site, and knew or should have known that it could lead to drug use.

I believe this would be a very weak case. What's lacking is causation. Maybe this is a weak example, but I liken it to growing old and cancer....growing old may lead to cancer but it is by no means the cause of it.
In the BBS case, the information on the website may lead to drug use but is it the cause of drug use? Some may say yes, but I would argue no. Someone who would use drugs arguably would have done so with or without the website. The website simply provides information to do so in a more resonsible manner. Furthermore, there is no reason that the BBS owners could reasonably know that it would be the cause of said use.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Trancendance:

First off, Good Samaritan laws do not impose a duty to rescue. All they do is immunize rescuers from any injury resulting from an attempted rescue undertaken in good faith.

My understanding of the Good Samaritan laws is contrary to what you say. It was my understanding that the very purpose of these laws was to compel ordinary citizens to make reasonable efforts to assist those in immediate danger as long as doing so does not place themselves in danger.
Can you provide any links that supports your interpretation?
However, I still don't know if they would be applicable. To the best of my knowledge, there are no Federal Good Samaritan laws; and there's only a handful of states that have them. Seeing as the medium was the internet, the states jurisdiction is in question. Perhaps that's the first issue that should be explained. When anything of a potentially criminal nature occurs on the internet, do the individual states have any jurisdiction? There must be a plethora of examples to cite regarding drug dealing and child pornography.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by DrGonzoESQ:

A kid on an open IRC(Internet Relay Chat) channel took a potentially lethal dose of opiates live in the channel. He did this on web cam and bragged about it in the channel chat. Some members of the chat begged him to stop others egged him on.
In regards to the person egging him on, I believe there are two issues to consider. The first is did his actions cause the death of the other person. The second is did he have any reason to believe that the person was telling the truth.
In the "actual" events as occurred, it appears that the person who overdosed has already taken a lethal dose of drugs. They simply had not yet been digested enough to take effect. The fact that someone else egged him on after the fact may be a moot point because he would have died anyway. This is obviously disputable since the person had not yet died and he did take more drugs after being egged on and he subsequently died.
Second, in the "actual" events, the person did have knowledge that person was not faking....that being the webcam where he could actually see him continue taking more drugs. Furthermore, he then called the person and noticed his altered speech signifying his enebriation. I don't think he would have any defense then.
So, in the case at hand, he had knowledge the person was in fact taking the drugs. The question then is did his actions cause the person to take a lethal dose?
(For reference, if a person is standing atop a building and threatening to jump and you egg him on and he does jump and die, you can and likely will be charged. Do I have specific cases to cite? No, but I'm positive he would be found liable.)
Click to expand...
 
Craig, for a discussion of Good Samaritan laws, see 798 A.2d 51.
Your understanding is a common misconception.
As for the causality, I do agree that it's not a strong case. However, legal causality, "proximate cause," does not have to be a direct cause exactly. It's just a link that's legally sufficient to impose liability. One example is "but for" causation, wherein, if a person would not have taken a drug, but for the information they received from an entity, that entity could conceivably be liable.
It's alot more complicated than just that, but that's my understanding.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, it's just a hobby of mine to look this stuff up since I have access to Westlaw via my job. So my interpretations could be wrong.
 
^^^
Velazquez ex rel. Velazquez v. Jiminez, 172 N.J. 240, 798 A.2d 51 (N.J. 2002)
It's a case citation to a New Jersey supreme court case.
 
Vermont has a statute that overrides the common law "no duty to rescue" rule. But they're the only state that I'm aware of to implement such a statute, and the penalty for violation is a $100 fine.
12 V.S.A. §519 (2002)
(a) A person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm shall ... give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.
 
Zarquon, I have no familiarity with Vermont's particular statute, but other similar statutes have numerous exceptions which make prosecution likely in only the most egregious cases. Check Vermont's; there are probably several "outs".
 
EDITED: OFF TOPIC AND UNPRODUCTIVE
[ 03 February 2003: Message edited by: DrGonzoESQ ]
 
Craig420, Transcendence:
The term "Good Samaritan Statute" is thrown around pretty sloppily. It usually means a statute protecting a negligent rescuer from liability, but sometimes people use it in reference to statutes imposing a duty to rescue. So you're both right. Now hug.
Back to the hypo. Although the host says "purpose=harm reduction," if the reality was that people got on to discuss who could shoot the biggest speedball and the host knew it, there might be some sort of liability criminally for complicity/accomplice before and civilly for an intentional tort (pick your favorite, I like intentional inflliction of emotional distress).
My brain also keeps coming back to strict liability but I can't make that even come close to work.
I'll look at this post after some sleep and elaborate if those ideas actually made sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top