The point I am making here is that any BCP that is issued should
ensure that any blacklist following the practices described would be
operating in compliance with existing criminal and civil law.
This - importing legal restrictions into the BCP - is not really
practical.
We, the group generating the BCP, cannot know what the legal
restrictions are. There are so many jurisdictions around that
researching the various laws is too large a task. And besides, even as
slow as legislative progress typically is, given the number of
jurisdictions, it's a dead cinch that someone's legal climate will
change during the BCP publication process, never mind between
publication and use.
Even if you just stick to, say, USA/Canada/EU/Australia, I think it
would be a very bad idea to enshrine the current law of any of those in
our document - especially given how fast (in legislative terms) the
legal climate is changing.
[..."collateral damage"...]
I don't think you will find a legitimate analogy for this, certainly
not the environmental one you cite where the real analogy would be
for private parties to organize measures against customers of the
polluters who had no part in the pollution.
And what's wrong with that? I can organize - or more precisely try to
organize - boycotts against anyone I please for any reason I please
(with a few specific exceptions in many jurisdictions, none of which
are relevant here), from people who wear black socks to people who
can't spell to people who buy from Exxon - to (say) people who get net
connectivity through Verizon.
The reason you will not find a legitimate analogy is that collateral
damage is very clearly a tortious interference with contract.
[...case law, notably MAPS...]
As you ought to know, the MAPS cases were brought in the USA, where the
merits of a case have comparatively little to do with how it ends; in
MAPS cases I heard of, it was a question of who was willing to throw
more money at lawyers.
A blacklist author is not injuring anyone.
The cases against MAPS clearly show that the courts did not accept
this argument.
As you yourself pointed out (in text I cut), the MAPS cases were
settled out of court; the court did not have a chance to accept or
reject the argument in question.
In the US you can be vulnerable for a claim for damages for walking
down the street. In this case it is the claim alone that would
result in crippling legal fees.
True. Perhaps the BCP should say "do not run the list under USA legal
jurisdiction"; that's certainly the lesson _I_ find in your examples.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML
mouse(_at_)rodents(_dot_)montreal(_dot_)qc(_dot_)ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg