Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!pilchuck!amc-gw!sumax!halcyon!walter From: halcyon!walter@sumax.seattleu.edu (walter) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Anonymous postings Keywords: ANONYMOUS LIABILITY CONGRESS LAW Message-ID: Date: 12 Jan 91 23:02:59 GMT Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service Lines: 64 The following is a quote from a message posted on 1-10-91 RE: "Anonymous postings" by George William Herbert in a discussion concerning liability of news administrators at USENET sites. I think George offers a solution here that doesn't actually address what Brad was referring to. >>Assume serious legal action begins. It has to look for a target. >>There are no targets. Perhaps it goes away frustrated, but all it >>takes is one plaintiff not willing to go away. >> >>Targets include uunet and the NSF to begin with. Or some big sites. >> >>Problem is that at many sites all it would take is a whiff of a >>lawsuit to have the site removed from the net by admins who are unaware >>of usenet or uncomfortable with it. "Who needs trouble?" > >Ok, Brad has neatly summarized the crux of the real problem here. I >have a >suggestion, a small proposal for 1) a Usenet local admin policy >and >2) a law to back it up. > >What I'm suggesting is this: We create an administrative policy guide >for News admins. Simply; it is not the responsibility of a news site to >check any information about any incoming news; however, if the site >admin is notified that an article at that site is illegal/libelous/etc, >it is that site's responsibility to as soon as reasonable locally cancel >it. > >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 >know to be illegal in some way. It is my perception that SOMEONE will always be the target until American society itself changes. Whether we like it or not, we live in litigious times. When someone does something we don't like, we are apt to seek out and assign blame. If we are personally impacted, we seek out and assign blame with the greatest of vigor. (i.e. in cases where potentially libelous statements are issued) If you absolve site administrators of responsibility for information that is libelous (or otherwise illegal) as long as they are personally unaware the information exists or that it is illegal, you will most likely find it necessary to assign responsibility to some OTHER person or organization. With anonymous postings, the problem is enhanced. Who's to blame? If no one can be blamed, how can the alleged injured/libeled party gain redress? Maybe, in the interest of fostering free speech, Congress should pass an ACT exempting the NET from libel laws. How realistic would we be to expect this to happen in the near future? If one feels they've been damaged, they wish and petition for legal remedy. Since the concept of no fault libel does not yet exist in the U.S., (granted, we cut some slack where public figures are concerned) you and your representatives in Congress would be fighting a strong lobby --- not the least of which would be a bevy of lawyers who consider libel litigation as their bread & butter. Libel, of course, is just one of several arenas where litigation can impact USENET or ANY public computer telecommunications NET. So, who or what shall we blame -- OR -- how do we change what seems inherent in human nature? In the process of pushing the sort of legislation you're interested in through Congress, you'll have to answer one or both of those questions. Then there is the matter of implementing your answers. I wish you luck in this project. Color me pessimistic in the short term, however. Walter Scott