Quote:
Originally Posted by First Lady
Would you same for your home phone provider? Your cell company? Internet provider?
Agreed. This is why there is an Elections Canada/RCMP investigation. Buck will stop with the person(s) who committed the criminal act.
And <insert any car manufacturer> should be bear some blame for all the vehicles used to carry out crimes.
|
Not the same FL and you know it.
If my allow my phone to be used REPEATEDLY, over a lengthy period of time to make threatening or harassing call, I know I wouldn't be allowed to wash my hands of the matter by saying "I didn't know".
And rather than make the ridiculous claim that holding the owner of Racknine responsible for the robo-calls is the same as holding car manufactures responsible for crimes committed using their vehicles, acknowledge that our courts hold the owner of a motor vehicle responsible for breaches of traffic laws even when the owner is not the driver of the vehicle, when those breaches are captured by a traffic camera.
The owner of the Racknine has to have some responsibility for what is being disseminated through his system. He is after all, receiving compensation for it. I wonder if you'd have the same opinion if, instead of election related calls, he was allowing his system to be used to disseminate hateful anti-gay or anti-Semitic or other hate speech.
I think this case is analogous to the case made against the owners of file sharing websites. The owners of those sites were held responsible for providing a means to share copyrighted material, even though they didn't host it. IMO, the owner of the Racknine would or should have the same kind of responsibility.
He knew, or should have known that this system was being used for (potentially) criminal purposes.
Also, I may be arguing semantics, but rather than say "Buck will stop with the person(s) who committed the criminal act", I'd say "the buck will stop with the persons who planned, approved, funded and/or committed the criminal act."