Xref: utzoo news.admin:7696 misc.legal:12354
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Usenet and legal liability
Message-ID: <1989Nov21.181205.3875@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <25683CAB.25106@ateng.com> <10771@max.u.washington.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 18:12:05 GMT

In article <10771@max.u.washington.edu> wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes:
>>   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.
> 
>You got this analogy from a lawyer?  The supermarket has no role in reviewing
>the contents of the Enquirer; the magazine's publisher is clearly identified on
>the editorial page (as required by law).  The sites have a major role in
>reviewing and filtering newsgroup content, and assume status of co-publisher by
>default.

Um, how do you (or your lawyer friends) conclude this?  Who at your site
reviews and filters newsgroup content?

Usenix got a real, formal, proper-charlie legal opinion on this issue a few
years ago.  The answer to "are Usenet sites innocent common carriers or
guilty co-publishers?" is "NOBODY KNOWS".  There are arguments both ways and
no adequate precedent.  A court might well choose some intermediate position.
-- 
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu