|
I would agree, this wouldn't open you up to any liability as long as it was automated. If this was actually brought to court it would show a good faith effort to follow the spirit of the law which is the opposite of what Gideon usually argues, that being following the letter of the law but knowingly violating the spirit of it.
But why would a false positive even result in legal action? A user doesn't have a civil right that entitles them to have their uploaded porn video displayed on a privately owned tube. Nothing in the original post talks about taking legal action when a video is flagged. So false positives have no place in this discussion.
This is NOT a censorship issue. Not allowing a user uploaded video to be displayed on a privately owned tube is not a free speech, censorship, or discrimination issue. You can use the TOS to say that anyone agreeing to use the tube understands their video is subject to automated approval before being displayed or not.
There is no liability for false positives and the eHarmony suit has no relevance here. Sexual orientation is a protected class in many states, that's why eHarmony choosing to refuse gays or lesbians was violation of state law and not something they could legally deny via a TOS.
|