Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts
From: sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Slander and Liable
Message-ID: <381@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Aug-83 14:36:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.381
Posted: Mon Aug  8 14:36:40 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Aug-83 05:46:08 EDT
References: <8645@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 23

The issue can't be that simple (getting sued over a Usenet contribution
and/or flame about a product).  After all, one can find many letters in
Byte and elsewhere that are much in the same vein, not to mention the
"troubleshooter" columns in the papers.  Just the other day, I read a
(in the Seattle Times) review of the new Osborne computer which was
very unfavorable, and will almost certainly hurt sales.  I doubt that
the paper would have risked a suit over a single review.  In fact,
movie and concert reviews are also in the same bag, so this is not 
a new or unique problem.  Gordon is certainly right in asserting that 
when the inevitable industry shakedown occurs, there will be a lot of 
fingerpointing, and Usenet will quite likely be blamed (unjustly) for 
some company failures.

Personally, I think that is one of the best justifications for
Usenet.  In these days of super-hype advertising, it's an effective
counterbalance for the outrageous lies that we are continually
bombarded with.  Don't you find the unvarnished facts (even if
edged with a bit of fire) rather refreshing?

					stan the leprechaun hacker
					ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

ps sorry, but don't y'all mean "libel"? Or am I missing something?