Thanks for the info, Psy. No threats intended, just pointing to precedents that we have all heard about lately. (In any case, I am quite reasonable and polite, compared with many of your posters who besides breaking the law are crude and offensive.) Anyway, when we know something is wrong, why allow it?
Because in order to preserve free speech on this forum, everything needs due process. Although I certainly do not agree with "well proxied" republishing the information, It's not my decision to make as to whether or not it's unacceptable. Essentially, this forum defers to the courts on first amendment matters. We try not to take sides and remain neutral. Think of this forum as a very large piece of paper. We're not responsible for what people write on it.
Many insurance companies, by the way, would agree with your notion of sharing freely private medical and other personal information (for their own gain) - I, for one, vigorously disagree.
Well. I disagree with what they do and agree with you.
(Although I might take exception if you called me a pedophile - that is a serious criminal accusation and one could argue that it, indeed, could be considered libel.) Just don't print private medical information.
Well. Not that I agree with what "well proxied" did, but there are several arguments here. The first is that the information was not originally published by "well proxied" on this forum, but by CALO. The second is that since CALO is not technically a medical facility, the records are not medical in nature. If they were, CALO, and not "well proxied" would certainly bear the brunt of any HIPAA penalties.
FInally, these might be of interest: http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_ ... ums-r.html
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ ... vate-facts
"Section 230 explicitly exempts from its coverage criminal law, communications privacy law, and "intellectual property claims." http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ ... ecency-act
Susan
Could be. Doe vs. Myspace held that section 230 applied to privacy of minors... And HIPAA
may apply to CALO but certainly not to any republisher (i have not read the law so I do not know for sure)... But it's a matter for the courts to decide. From my perspective, I have no idea whether what was published was illegal or not. Whether or not I find it disgusting or offensive (i do) is irrelevant. That by itself is not enough to warrant removal. Nothing on this site gets removed without a court order.
Sometimes it makes things difficult, but it would be a slippery slope of we suddenly started making exceptions.