Xref: utzoo misc.legal:26244 comp.org.eff.talk:2413
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!hoss!riddle
From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: sysop liability/responsibility
Message-ID: <1991May20.130200.11894@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Date: 20 May 91 13:02:00 GMT
References: <1991May20.051224.16358@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@unlinfo.unl.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Lines: 63
Nntp-Posting-Host: hoss.unl.edu

In <1991May20.051224.16358@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> psun@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Pete) writes:

>Let me begin by apologizing for dredging up a topic that has likely
>been thrashed about many times before.

* * *

>  The original objector, seeing 
>no firm footing, subtly shifted topic into sysop liability.
>It is this persons contention (and this person claims to be
>something of an authority on communication law) that a sysop
>can be held liabel for anything posted on his system.  This 
>doesn't seem unreasonable.  The person then further states
>that any system that receives the automated mailing from that
>system can likewise be held liabel for its contents.  

>Is there any truth in this?  What can be considered an
>illegal posting?  Can UseNet as an electronic distribution
>mechanism similar to fidonet, be used as a model for
>appropriate postings?  If half of what this lawyer stated on
>the echo is true, any university or business receiving a
>usenet feed can be shut down...

>Answeres appreciated as always.
>

Well, the real answer is that the law on this is "unsettled" and that some
systems /have/ been shut down and some sysops placed at jeopardy because
of information received from outside and made available on their systems.
The names JOLNET and Steve Jackson Games come quickly to mind.

I've cross-posted this response to comp.org.eff.talk (if my news.reader
works correctly), which is probably a better place for this.  
 
There are two models which might be used in the legal discussion.  The
first is that of the Normal Citizen, who is responsible for what he says
or does.  If you hear something libelous and repeat it, you might well be
liable for your repetition.  (There's a whole body of law limiting this in
the case of public figures and controversy.  It's how lawyers pay the
bills.)
 
The second model is that of the publisher.  There might be a limited
defense/exception for "republication."  There might not be.  If there is,
it might or might not apply to sysops.  As someone said about recent
Secret Service investigations, while comparing "Phrack" (electronic only
publication) to "2600" (electronic and paper)--"I come out on paper, and
the Constitution knows how to handle that."
 
Of course, shutting down the Illuminati BBS is not the same thing as
shutting down Usenet, and somehow I think the difference would become
important quickly.  Which isn't to say that size makes it right, but
rather acknowledges reality.

Disclaimer:  I'm a graduate J.D., but not yet licensed in any jurisdiction
and this certainly isn't specific legal advice.  Anyone needing legal
advice needs to see a lawyer licensed in their state.


--
            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
riddle@hoss.unl.edu                  |  Nebraska Inns of Court
ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net  |  +1 402 593 1192
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet            |  3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis