[過去ﾛｸﾞ] Let's talk with Jim-san. Part2 (837ﾚｽ)
上下前次1-新
抽出解除 ﾚｽ栞

---

このｽﾚｯﾄﾞは過去ﾛｸﾞ倉庫に格納されています｡
次ｽﾚ検索 歴削→次ｽﾚ 栞削→次ｽﾚ 過去ﾛｸﾞﾒﾆｭｰ

---

127(2): ◆IZUMI162i6 2006/07/30(日)17:21 ID:H0sTRxna(5/8) BE AAS
> So, your meaning is that a deleter does not need to follow the law
> when he/she judges a deletion
No. I think Deleter must not follow the law.
All Japanese have to correspond to the infringement of right if it is possible.
If Deleter can do a legal judgment as the site, Deleter will not be able to escape the obligation.

Example
*****************************************************************
Dear BBSPINK,

This is IZUMI from IZUMI Corp in Japan.

Delete the following messages.
省9

---

129: 2006/07/30(日)18:25 ID:qBjw+O7q(1/3) AAS
For instance,he/she refuses the deletion of >>127

RE:IZUMI of IZUMI;co
｢I claimed "you" should delete. The reason is a violation of the law.
However, the deletion was refused. I want to pursue this responsibility. ｣

at this time

D:｢i do not have a knowledge of law. And i am not a lawyer.
Therefore, i am not being given the authority to do a legal judgment　by the owner.
Only the owner has this power.
It is clearly shown in 2ch板:xxx｣

I think that he/she should be able to insist like this.

---

130(1): ◆MARY/2Kkkc 2006/07/30(日)18:28 ID:Cwh6Szby(3/4) AAS
>>125
I am not sure about it, but I do not think it is a big problem,
because I could find many web site in Japan says only "not to enter under 18 years old".

>>127
Thank you for your explanation and an example.
I still do not understand this part why is it?
"If Deleter can do a legal judgment as the site, Deleter will not be able to escape the obligation."

>The message might be a justifiable criticism.
>However, you are hesitating in whether it is a justifiable criticism or an infringement of right.
>Can you judge "Do not delete it" for this request?
省11

---

上下前次1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴

---

ｽﾚ情報 赤ﾚｽ抽出 画像ﾚｽ抽出 歴の未読ｽﾚ AAｻﾑﾈｲﾙ

---

ぬこの手 ぬこTOP 0.195s*