Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!ddsw1!olsa99!flagship!lucio
From: lucio@flagship.UUCP (Lucio)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: filling out the legal list (was Re: Is USENET stagnating? (long))
Summary: Just a suggestion ...
Message-ID: <229@flagship.UUCP>
Date: 11 Nov 89 11:52:58 GMT
References: <5134@omepd.UUCP> <36194@apple.Apple.COM> <25533CA4.10230@ateng.com> <1989Nov8.175854.1586@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: FLAGSHIP Wide Area Networks - Cape Town
Lines: 24

In article <1989Nov8.175854.1586@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <758@tijc02.UUCP> pjs269@tijc02.UUCP (Paul Schmidt) writes:
> >It seems to me the only reasonable legal decision that could come from a
> >law-suit is that only the poster would be liable for any damages.  Each
> 
> ...  The phone company is not required to control
> the content of phone conversations, and cannot be sued over them; it is
> a "common carrier".  Is Usenet a common carrier?  *Good Question*.
>
> ...  You do not become a common carrier
> by declaring yourself to be one, UUNET's declarations notwithstanding;
> you become one if the courts and/or the legislatures say you are one.

Perhaps it is possible to create a legal precedent by one
(ficticious) suit being brought to a fairly relevant US court; the
two parties would have to fork out the legal cost, but in collusion
ought to be able to swing the decision in favour of the DESIRED
outcome, probably the declaration of Usenet a common carrier.

Anybody got a better idea?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio de Re                       ...uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!flagship!lucio
-------------------- plan to throw THIS one away ------ lucio@flagship