On Mar 7, 22:29, Timothy C. May wrote:

At 2:38 AM 3/8/96, Bill Frantz wrote:

...

At 6:59 PM 3/7/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:

...

If SurfWatch can be sued for a "bad review," then Siskel and Ebert had better find a new line of work.

As long as a reviewer corrects errors, as SurfWatch seems to be willing to do, I think they are relativly suit-proof. If they don't, well - anyone can be sued for anything. I'll let the lawyers comment on the possibility of success.

My point was that "opinions" (such as movie reviews) are not "tortable" (don't know the legal name), unless specific inaccuracies can be demonstrated, and even then it is hard. Siskel and Ebert have undoubtedly destroyed the box office prospects of many a movie with their "thumbs down" diss of death, but I know of no successful (or even adjudicated) lawsuits on this basis.

Thanks for the clarification. However, this line of argument applies only to "third-party" ratings systems. Right now, Microsoft/RSAC/SurfWatch and SafeSurf/Cybersitter/etc. are setting up competing standards which would essentially force people to "self-rate" their own sites, or else be blocked out by browsers configured to reject unrated sites (a feature Microsoft plans to add to its Internet Explorer). The question I have is if these systems were widely implemented, could an Web page author or provider of content be sued for "mislabeling" their page? If so, under what circumstances? Could the RSAC attach legal requirements to the use of their system, and open up such a loophole (similar to how Sun attaches conditions to the use of its "Java" logo)? If it's possible, the implications of this are pretty dire. The RSAC itself reports that many retailers refuse to stock software that's not labeled according to their standards. If Web sites were similarly coerced into not only labeling their pages, but abiding by any arbitrary conditions attached to *use* of those standards, things could get pretty ugly. Hell, who needs the Gov't when industry can censor more efficiently? -H