Reply #20: yeah and how did McDonald's respond to that case. . .? [View All]

[stellanoir]

With a disclaimer: "Contents may be excessively HOT. . .Duh. . ." or some such nonsense.

It's like. . ."hey stupid. . . If you took a gazillion I.U.'s of fat soluble Vitamin E because a totally unlicensed stranger recommended it on a website, then you fully earned the toxic effects you suffered. Congratulations."

Why does this potential liability remind me of Fox's case against Franken saying that they owned the words, "Fair and Balanced." The judge just laughed it out of court.

Holding the administrators responsible for our ridiculous ramblings is crazy but I'm sure they can figure out a more appropriate disclaimer than the one I wrote.

I agree with Desert Rose, it applies to many other forums as well. I concur also with Skinner for his concerns. But the right disclaimer would protect the administrators, all of us, as well as the less than discerning readers.

I've been giving over the counter Chinese Meds to friends, family, and strangers for years. I have a close friend that was a National Commissioner for the oversight of Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture who advised me as to what to use. They're cheap, effective, speed up the amelioration of normal cold and flu symptoms, and have no side effects whatsoever. I'm not liable for any problems and there haven't even been any anyway, because I give them away.

This whole dilemma seems completely workable and entirely fixable to me. But it may bring up broader issues having to do with the site. Fundamentally, I don't believe the administrators are at all responsible for our ramblings and they should be protected. Not by the repression of expression but by the appropriately penned disclaimer. Silly me.