Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaero!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news.stargate
Subject: Re: Legal liability & moderation
Message-ID: <531@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 16:42:23 EST
Article-I.D.: vortex.531
Posted: Wed Jan 30 16:42:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Feb-85 21:39:46 EST
References: <1972@sun.uucp>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 41

Of course, moderation may entail more legal liabilities than non-moderation.

However, note that non-moderation isn't free and clear either.  For
example, a non-moderated scheme would require solid user authentication
(and possibly signed documents from each submitter) so that responsibility
could be assigned back to the person who posted the message.  You cannot
just set up an "open" conduit that allows people to anonymously post
libelous, copyrighted, or other such materials without having the
responsibility fall back upon the organization operating the service.
The same lawyer who wrote the ;login piece mentioned this to me at a meeting
at Usenix.  There are laws regarding "irresponsible" behavior in providing
such unauthenticated and unmoderated conduits.

Also, in limited bandwidth situations (such as Stargate, which isn't
infinite) you have to make SOME resource allocation decisions.
If you're not going to make them based on content (stripping
repetitious material at the VERY least), you are forced
to do input allocation based on money or fixed per-person quotas.
I don't like either of these latter two mechanisms since I don't
think they'd result in a fair system.

However, what is actually more important, is that there is nothing
so terrible about an organization accepting legal liability for something,
so long as they understand the liabilities beforehand.  Every radio or
TV station, magazine or newsletter, accepts liability for what
they choose to broadcast and/or print.  That's the price they pay for
providing quality in most cases, rather than a ever-growing and
uncontrolled mass of garbage with a few gems showing up at rarer
and rarer intervals.

The Usenix board seems to be viewing the lawyer's paper as a
discussion of "worst case" scenaries.  They have explicitly stated
that the existence of legal liabilities is not the primary
factor--they accept similar liabilities when they publish ;login.

The real issues, of course, involving content and organization
of such an operation will not be settled overnight.  There is
a tremendous amount of discussion that will have to take place
over the next few months.

--Lauren--