Xref: utzoo news.admin:7847 misc.legal:12545 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz!lawnet!greg From: greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal Subject: Re: usenet and legal liability Message-ID: <341@lawnet.LawNet.Com> Date: 23 Nov 89 16:37:55 GMT References: <691@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> Reply-To: greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) Followup-To: news.admin Organization: LawNet Inc. California Offices. Lines: 56 In article <691@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes: >>he/she will agree to take it on. Some will accept libel cases based on a >>percentage of the award, if any. The first big Internet libel case will >>probably work like this, with a lot of attendant media publicity. Libel cases being among the most difficult to win most lawyers do not take them on a contingent basis (percentage of award). > > a lawyer tells me that libel must be spoken, and that > slander is written. so shouldn't you be saying "slander case"? slander is oral -- libel is written. > >>Of course, if you believe no one will ever be sued over a Usenet article, then >>this is a moot point. > > i hope that nobody does get sued over an article. it is a > rather uncomfortable feeling to be threatened with such a suit, > especially when the 'accuser' is a corporate giant. this is precisely > what happened to me about a month ago. > i allegedly made a posting which gave my opinion about a > company which is represented on this network by marketing twerps > instead of engineering types. they promptly threatened me with > legal action. it's one thing to have MES after you in court... > it's another to have a big corporation threaten court action. It would seem to be a foolish endeavor for a corporate giant to sue over an article in USENET unless the target were another giant. The instant answer for many of the students, young engineers and others who have access to USENET would, in many cases, be laughter since the cost of the suit by the giant would, in many cases, exceed the net worth of the target. The only way that the plaintiff can recover is if he can, in most cases that I can imagine here, sue the site or the site owner. A site is not necessarily responsible for the contents of the messages that individuals post. If the president of IBM were to post to the net and sign it "President" it would appear that the corporate entity would be liable, but most cases it is a student, engineer or other person with a disclaimer that they don't speak for anyone. In fact the understanding that I have is that most people, unless they say so, are not speaking for the site - but merely themselves. Under those circumstances I doubt that the suit would be a prudient investment for the giant (or it's attorneys). An opinion -- as opposed to a statement of fact -- is normally just that. It is extremely difficult to successfully sue for an opinion statement. And the reality is that to sue you must prove things that may also require the disclosure of trade secrets -- a point most giants will consider before suing anyone. Finally -- the hostility they would generate on the net for suing would be most damaging -- problably more than the original statement itself. -- Gregory G. Petersen Voice: 714-971-1441 greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com Petersen & Trott Fax: 714-971-1329 770 The City Drive South A Law Corporation Orange, California 92668 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com