Xref: utzoo alt.config:3519 news.admin:11807 comp.org.eff.talk:1157 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!spool2.mu.edu!uunet!seas.gwu.edu!dutcher From: dutcher@seas.gwu.edu (Sylvia Dutcher) Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Anonymous postings Message-ID: <2521@sparko.gwu.edu> Date: 11 Jan 91 12:10:54 GMT References: <1991Jan7.190403.9267@alphalpha.com> <1991Jan09.175609.6303@looking.on.ca> <40305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: dutcher@seas.gwu.edu () Followup-To: alt.config Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C. Lines: 13 In article <40305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a >law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal >responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not Phil Gagner, my husband who's a lawyer and computer scientist, comments: When Congress passes a statute, it defines narrowly the scope of the law in that area. I do not believe that we have enough experience with computer communication systems to draft a good law. Check out the proposed computer virus law pending in Congress for a really poorly drafted statute, based on a lack of technical understanding of the consequences of the law. Probably better to let the courts, with their strong tendency to protect 1st Amendment values, wrestle with the problem. Congressional "protection" of an activity is sometimes the kiss of death.