[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]

On Jan 26, 2008 2:52 PM, Michael Below <mbelow@antithese.de> wrote:
> Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a
> disclaimer like "TINLA"?

Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on
earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as
constituting "legal advice" in the first place.

> One, it is probably not intelligible to people coming to this list for
> legal advice. A disclaimer that can't be understood by its target
> audience shouldn't have legal meaning.

People shouldn't be coming on to this list for "legal advice". That's
not what it's for.

> Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal
> system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is
> a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it
> away post factum. A pipe is a pipe, even if you put a sign "This is not
> a pipe" beneath it.

Up to a point. But I don't think it is a case of whether something is
"legal advice" in the abstract, but whether (a) the person sending the
message owes its readers a duty of care, and (b) whether the readers
are entitled to rely on the message as legal advice. That seems pretty
unlikely to me - or I wouldn't post on this list at all, disclaimer or
no disclaimer - and so the need for a full, explicit disclaimer seems
minimal. "TINLA" just makes the point that bit clearer, in a
light-hearted and generally accepted manner.


Note: This email has been written and sent for the general interest
and benefit of readers of this mailing list. It is not intended to be
a definitive analysis of the law or other issues relating to its
subject matter. Advice should be taken on specific issues before you
take or decide not to take any action.

Or in other words: TINLA.


Reply to: