Xref: utzoo news.admin:7806 misc.legal:12422
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Usenet and legal liability
Message-ID: <14954@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 26 Nov 89 22:10:48 GMT
References: <25683CAB.25106@ateng.com> <10771@max.u.washington.edu> <256C5DB1.683@ateng.com> <52003@looking.on.ca>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Followup-To: news.admin
Lines: 30

In article <52003@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>I don't think the non-security of the net would be a great defence.
>
>Let's say a [potentially actionable, apparently from me ] posting comes out...
>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...
>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."   ...

*BZZT* 

reality check

If you get a REGISTERED LETTER from someone over a posting they consider
libellous, you will DAMN WELL repeat after me, "I never saw it.  It is
a forgery.  If you want to talk further speak to my lawyer.  Goodbye."

If you wait till court to bring the subject up, you get what you deserve.

The possibility of incompetent use to does not itself tarnish
proof-of-authorship as a useful defense.

-- 
 1955-1975: 36 Elvis movies.  |  Tom Neff
 1975-1989: nothing.          |  tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET