Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!fluke!kurt
From: kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: caution on vulgar replies
Message-ID: <1991Feb5.171154.11703@tc.fluke.COM>
Date: 5 Feb 91 17:11:54 GMT
References: <20695@know.pws.bull.com> <42996@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <26565@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 23

> Since when is vulgarism against the law?  It isn't.  Show me the law.  

I think Mr Aubin's suit is for libel, not vulgarism.  If Mr Aubin was
insulted in print in defamatory and untrue ways, he has a theoretical case
for libel.  The rest of the case seems to revolve around the different
levels of freedom-of-speech accorded the different media.  For instance, it
is much harder to rule a printed book obscene than it is to censor a
broadcast.  Why?  I don't know, but the laws are interpreted differently on
a medium-by-medium basis, and usenet goes over phone wires.

If the University doesn't censure the defendant (does anyone know his name?),
then it condones his action; this is the principal power of Mr Aubin's case.
They have either to throw the defendant out or defend him, and it's cheaper
to toss him out.  So much for acedemic freedom, hey?

Of course, truth is a perfect defense against libel.  While I cannot speak
to any knowledge of Mr Aubin, were I a juror in the hyphthetical case of
X v. Y, where Mr X (a student) called Mr Y a <string of vile four letter words>
on a flamish medium like usenet, and Mr Y responded by sueing Mr X and
attempting to get him thrown out of college, I would have to think very hard
about whether the <string of vile four letter words> did not accurately
describe Mr Y after all.  I suppose this argument is too whimsical to
actually be used in court.