Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!styx!mcb From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Towards making hosts and their admin free from a criminal offence Message-ID: <20668@styx.UUCP> Date: Wed, 21-May-86 00:44:31 EDT Article-I.D.: styx.20668 Posted: Wed May 21 00:44:31 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 01:56:52 EDT References: <611@bu-cs.UUCP> <164@comp.lancs.ac.uk> <20663@styx.UUCP> <1259@mulga.OZ> <2026@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <1261@mulga.OZ> Reply-To: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) Distribution: net Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore CA Lines: 63 In article <1261@mulga.OZ> isaac@mulga.OZ (Isaac Balbin) writes: > [. . .] Would you consider say a racist article a `free exchange of ideas'? Yes. [I'm NOT, repeat NOT, a racist in any way, shape or form.] I still think Isaac is missing the point about what freedom of expression really is, and how it operates in the USA. In our system, you don't get to suppress things because you find them morally offensive. Our leading civil liberties organization, the ACLU, caused a stir of controversy several years ago by defending the right of Nazis to hold a public rally. I hold Nazis and racists in the most odious degree of contempt, but I fully support their right to freedom of expression. The above does not necessarily hold true for Usenet, since the net exists, as one must constantly point out, at the sufferance of the organizations that foot the bill for the traffic. If CSS (seismo) and the mcvax folks decide that they don't want to carry net.politics because it is expensive, wasteful, and could expose either party to legal liability, they have the perfect right to do so, and I can no more object to that than I can object that my local newspaper refuses to pay to print whatever blather I send them. But: I draw a distinction between this and "signing" a statement when I post that I take responsibility for violation of law. The only responsibility I am willing to take is that imposed upon me by local law with regard to my posting. In the USA, this more-or-less reduces to the following (please excuse the possible omissions; it's been a few years since my Constitutional Law class): 1. Incitement to riot and other words presenting a clear and present danger of causing a breach of the peace) is a criminal offense. 2. Disclosure of classified information by persons covered by various federal statutes, and occasionally by other persons, is a criminal offense. 3. Defamation (libel and slander) is a tort (civil wrong). 4. Disclosure of trade secrets and proprietary information by persons bound not to may be a tort or a breach of contract, depending on the nature. 5. Other utterances may be criminal or civil wrongs when they consist of inducement to commit particular crimes or to breach contracts, etc., respectively. Basically, that's IT. If I comply with the above, I am simply NOT going to make any additional assurances that my posting is amenable to French, British, Australian, whatever, law. If the people therein are incapable of electing governments that properly safeguard their own individual liberties while paying lip service to them in the UN charter, then too bad. Let 'em start their own net. The real answer is to urge the governments involved to consider Usenet and the systems that import and distribute information to be "common carriers" as used in the international telecommunications industry. This would provide them the same shield of liability that protects, say, the French PTT from liability when a person outside France calls a person in France on the telephone and makes an illegal communication. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb