Xref: utzoo news.admin:7680 misc.legal:12347
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Usenet and legal liability
Message-ID: <25683CAB.25106@ateng.com>
Date: 20 Nov 89 18:04:25 GMT
Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 50

A long time ago, I wrote:
>As long as Usenet does not exist legally as a single
>entity, it cannot be attacked by legal means.

According to chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach):
>Chip: Are you a lawyer? Have you run this past a lawyer?

Yes.

This article consists of my notes of a conversation with our company lawyer.
It does not constitute an Official Legal Opinion, and it probably applies
only to U.S. sites.  Let the reader beware.  Etc.

  1.  Suits are expensive.  Sue someone, and you can expect to pay $10,000
      in legal fees.  Thus, any kind of legal action is often waylaid at the
      pocketbook.  A person or company would have to be highly motivated to
      drop that kind of money on a suit, especially considering:

  2.  Any libel or copyright infringment suit would have to prove
      authorship.  Given the insecure nature of UUCP and NNTP, such proof is
      impossible.  That's right, impossible.  So unless you are foolish
      enough to claim in writing or in person that you authored a
      controversial article, you probably cannot be sued successfully.  And
      if you do claim such a thing, it's not really your Usenet article that
      got you in trouble.

  3.  In matters of libel, truth is always an absolute defense.

  4.  Posting to Usenet consititutes publication.  However, the legal term
      "publication" just means that a third party is informed.  It need not
      involve print.  Nevertheless, risks are low.  Remember point #2: you
      cannot prove who published what.

  5.  Sites that carry a newsgroup would probably be in a situation similar
      to supermarkets that carry the National Enquirer.  The Enquirer losing
      a hypothetical libel suit doesn't make the supermarkets who carry it
      liable.  Of course, this is only one possible interpretation.

  6.  The less policy a company has about Usenet, the more protected it is
      from possible legal attack.

  7.  A hypothetical Usenet Inc. would be a suit magnet.

As I mentioned above, these opinions should not be construed as Legal
Opinion in fancy script.  However, they come from a member of the Illinois
bar, so they're not just lay speculation either.
-- 
You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering;  <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
    "Did I ever tell you the Jim Gladding story about the binoculars?"