Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Anonymous postings Message-ID: Date: 13 Jan 91 16:09:41 GMT References: <1991Jan7.190403.9267@alphalpha.com> <1991Jan09.175609.6303@looking.on.ca> <40305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <10129@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <11705@goofy.Apple.COM> Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World Lines: 30 In-Reply-To: wrs@apple.com's message of 13 Jan 91 00:28:58 GMT Obviously anyone can sue anytime, let's get that out of the way... But I'm curious about the (legal) wisdom of companies like DEC and Apple removing certain hierarchies such as alt.sex. It would seem to me that at that point they are admitting an editorial function and would therefore leave themselves much more open to (successful) litigation. They have now created the evidence that they take responsibility for the content of USENET. If I were considering filing a suit based on some posting I would take glee at this admission. They've admitted they're liable, now I would only have to argue that they were negligent in performing that function. Is it possible that the legal depts in these companies have allowed their prudishness cloud their judgement? Or, as is much more likely, has middle management just found a bullshit excuse to enforce their own morality? Compare this thread with the thread in alt.activism regarding university campus censorship and the claim that these sort of "legal fears" are often used just to manipulate policy. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD