Xref: utzoo news.admin:7726 misc.legal:12377
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!think!ames!pacbell!att!watmath!ria!uwovax!gerard
From: gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Usenet and legal liability
Message-ID: <4355.25695b02@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Date: 21 Nov 89 19:26:09 GMT
References: <25683CAB.25106@ateng.com> <10771@max.u.washington.edu>
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada
Lines: 26

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.

"A major role in reviewing and filtering news group contents", whatever 
gave you that idea?  A site decides whether or not to carry a certain 
newsgroup, like a supermarket decides whether or not to sell the 
National Enquirer.  But that is it.  Do you seriously think the sites 
read through the individual postings to determine the content?  A site 
has just as much to do with the contents of a newsgroup, as a 
supermarket has with the contents of the National Enquirer.  Nothing, 
that is.  So I think the analogy is quite valid.

--------------------------------------------
Gerard Stafleu
(519) 661-2151 Ext. 6043
Internet: gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca
BITNET:   gerard@uwovax