Brooks wrote:
> What I'm looking for is some guidelines or precedent. If other people are
> doing it, or will soon be doing it, I don't want to pass up a good
> opportunity. But I also don't want to be the one to break the new ground
> what should not be broken, and cause stress and mayhem in the process. If
> it's a big deal in uncharted waters, I'd just as soon leave it alone. (I'm
> happy to fight for principles, but not having to pay for car parts is hardly
> a principle, right?)
The only precedent that comes to mind is a Neon running national events with
Hooters restaurant as a sponsor. Not quite as counter-culture as bondage.com
but certainly has the potential to offend.
> On the flip side, as something of a troublemaker, I have to wonder what the
> policy would be. Would "playboy.com" or "gay.com" or "nerve.com" be ok? I'm
> absolutely *not* being snotty here, I just want to be sure that if I'm going
> to pass up a couple of thousand dollars in parts, it's based on a more or
> less consistent policy (even an informal, consensus-based policy, as has
> been forming on this list).
Certainly more mainstream and therefore less likely to offend a large part
of the community, but still....
Legally speaking, if this were a workplace situation, it would pretty much
be entirely unacceptable. The laws for sexal harrasment in a workplace
are way stricter than in public because of the confined area.
Publically speaking, the law that applies is probably penal code sections
311-312.7 available at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3851125966+5+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Specifically 311.5 maybe?
312.6 (a) appears to give you an out for most of the content as long as
you're not actually creating it.
I'm sure you're familiar with the commnications decency act (CDA) and how
far reaching it's effects are. There, the standard of offensive is defined
by the location the material is being viewed and the ISP (carrier) is liable
if they take no action to remove the offensive material.
I'm not a lawyer, but it would make sense to me to at least consult with
one before proceeding.
--Darren "not offended by anything" Madams
p.s. I don't have the SCCA rulebook handy to check that, but if there's a
question on interpretation of a rule, write a letter to the SEB and ask
them to clarify it. That way at least you've got that part covered (pun
not intended). :)
|