DHL almost certainly qualifies as a common carrier. This means that ideally they have no business going out of their way to find out what they're carrying. (If they happen across something that tells them they're carrying something illegal, they're obligated to act -- but a common carrier, as far as I know, has no obligation to investigate without such evidence.)
I can see an interesting test case come out of this: $PORNOGRAPHER sends something via DHL that is obscene in the destination country. DHL fails to catch it, and delivers it. $PORNOGRAPHER is now up for obscenity charges. Is DHL, with its history of attempting to control obscenity in what it ships, also liable for the obscenity charges? My initial guess is yes: they're exercising editorial control. (For an analogous case, see Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (and contrast Cubby v. Compuserve). The only problem with generating a test case like this is that $PORNOGRAPHER would remain liable for obscenity regardless of how DHL ended up.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2003-12-10 20:42 (UTC)I can see an interesting test case come out of this: $PORNOGRAPHER sends something via DHL that is obscene in the destination country. DHL fails to catch it, and delivers it. $PORNOGRAPHER is now up for obscenity charges. Is DHL, with its history of attempting to control obscenity in what it ships, also liable for the obscenity charges? My initial guess is yes: they're exercising editorial control. (For an analogous case, see Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (and contrast Cubby v. Compuserve). The only problem with generating a test case like this is that $PORNOGRAPHER would remain liable for obscenity regardless of how DHL ended up.