Xref: utzoo news.admin:7774 misc.legal:12406
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!shadooby!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Usenet and legal liability
Message-ID: <52003@looking.on.ca>
Date: 24 Nov 89 07:36:12 GMT
References: <25683CAB.25106@ateng.com> <10771@max.u.washington.edu> <256C5DB1.683@ateng.com>
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 37
Class: discussion

I don't think the non-security of the net would be a great defence.

Let's say a posting comes out, with the right path from me, calling
Mr. X on the net a very nasty name.  If X is the litigious type, and
wants to sue, first thing he will do is e-mail me, complaining.  He
may also post to the net, complaining.  ("may,"  HAH!)

Now if it's a forgery, I won't see it since it has my site in the path.
But I will see the e-mail and the posting with 99% probablility.

I can ignore the e-mail, but if X is serious he will then phone or
write a registered letter.   If, after all this, I don't claim it's
a forgery (no suit has been served yet) that would be rather odd, would
it not?

Then the suit is served, and suddenly I say, "how do you know it's not
a forgery."   For most people on USENET, if a forgery is done, the
policy is to disclaim the forgery ASAP.  Usually the target of the forgery,
and half the rest of the net, mail you to ask about it.

So if you were the judge, and I only claimed a forgery months after the
fact, when the suit started, what would you rule?  Remember, in civil
law, there is no concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  That's
a criminal law concept.   In civil law, there just has to be a
preponderance of evidence for the plaintif's case.

The deep-pocket concept scares me, too.   Right now, USENET does not
contain much in the way of people who want to run out and sue, in spite
of what some people think.  How many *actual suits* have been served?
We know none have gone to court.   A suit would destroy portions of
the net, although not all, and for now most people seem to realize that
bringing a suit would not be in their best interests.

After all, all Jonathan Richmond did was go to the papers and get a group
cut off at 2 universities, and his name is thankfully mud.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473