Xref: utzoo alt.config:3546 news.admin:11848 comp.org.eff.talk:1191 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bu.edu!bucsf.bu.edu!cerebus From: cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) Newsgroups: alt.config,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Anonymous postings Message-ID: Date: 14 Jan 91 21:49:33 GMT References: <1991Jan7.190403.9267@alphalpha.com> <1991Jan09.175609.6303@looking.on.ca> <40305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Followup-To: alt.config Organization: Boston University Bridge Crew Lines: 56 In-reply-to: gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU's message of 10 Jan 91 06:12:33 GMT On 10 Jan 91, gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) G> In article <> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >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?" G> Ok, Brad has neatly summarized the crux of the real problem here. I have a G> suggestion, a small proposal for 1) a Usenet local admin policy and G> 2) a law to back it up. 1) Enforced by what mechanism? 2) The same. G> [...] G> however, if the site admin is notified G> that an article at that site is illegal/libelous/etc, it is that site's G> responsibility to as soon as reasonable locally cancel it. Here the qustion of what libel is arises. Last I heard, it takes a judge and a jury to do that on a case-by-case basis. There are few standards and precedents to go by. What seems libelous to one man is criticism/commentary to another. Case in point: Falwell vs. Larry Flynt Publications, in which Falwell attempted to claim libel/emotional trauma after a (IMHO damn funny) full-page critical 'ad' appeared in _Hustler_. He was defeated resoundingly. G> Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a G> law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal G> responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not G> know to be illegal in some way. Such a bill will be promptly defeated by the lawyers in Congress and the lobbyists for every legal orginization from here to Calcutta. You forget how these folks make their money: as a percentage of the cash awards they win for their clients. The more the settlement/award, the richer they get. Joe Newsposter is piss-poor. His organization or school or the site that is fingered as a prime distributer of the offending article is not. You don't sue poor people. You sue rich insurance companies and businesses. The rich companies then shaft their customers for the costs. Just ask any insurance company that sell malpractice or auto insurance. G> Suggestions? Flamage? I'm willing to send _my_ congresspeople a horde G> of letters... are you, for the long-term good of Usenet and other computer G> systems. The long-term good of Usenet is to keep as low a profile as possible. -- Cerebus "The methods which you propose would result in a recognizable USENET organization; this would only make a beter target to sue."