Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!ll1a!cuuxb!rbc
From: rbc@cuuxb.ATT.COM (~XT6561210~Rick Clark~C24~H15~6011~)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Len Rose and problems in Illinois
Message-ID: <5257@cuuxb.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Nov 90 15:55:04 GMT
References: <1990Oct29.175540.23987@uncecs.edu> <1990Oct30.035606.1282@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4576@rsiatl.UUCP> <18663@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Oct31.212235.6101@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1990Nov01.065845.19367@looking.on.ca>
Reply-To: rbc@cuuxb.UUCP (Richard B. Clark)
Organization: AT&T Computer Systems, Lisle, IL
Lines: 21

In article <1990Nov01.065845.19367@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
+In article <1990Oct31.212235.6101@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes:
+>Sounds like a serious cover your ass operation to me.  Mix in a few threats
+>(as if you could prove anyone made a particular posting on Usenet)

+Actually, I am not so sure about this.   If I were a judge, and I understood
+USENET and I heard testimony that:

	[ List of strong evidence a given poster made a given post ]

+Then I would conclude that it had indeed been proven that User X posted the
+identified message.

Isn't this much more proof than necessary?  Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I thought in a libel (is that the same as slander?) suit, the person accused
of libel did not have to prove what they said was true.  I thought the
accuser had to prove what was said was false, that the libeler had reason
to doubt that it was true, and that the libeler had malicious intent.
-- 
=Richard B. Clark
 Lisle, IL       ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!rbc  OR cuuxb!rbc@arpa.att.com