Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!werner
From: werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news.stargate
Subject: Re: Starhub -- one alternative to Stargate
Message-ID: <3688@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jul-86 14:17:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.3688
Posted: Tue Jul 22 14:17:22 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jul-86 07:22:45 EDT
References: <260@dmsd.UUCP> <6945@utzoo.UUCP>, <262@dmsd.UUCP> <6971@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.news.group:6195 net.news.stargate:273
Summary: can't you avoid liability somehow?  non-profit corp?

In article <6971@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> A further question about Starhub:  how do you plan to address the legal
> issues of liability for content?  Any centralized organization, be it
> Stargate or Starhub, is a potential target for lawsuits.  Stargate, last
> I heard, plans to address this basically by being an all-moderated net.
> An organization which plans to pass all traffic that comes in is going
> to be paying an awful lot for liability insurance.

If we founded a non-profit corporation which puts a sattelite into the
sky that does nothing but "echo" or "forward" transmissions radiatated at
it,  would that make the corporation, management, or founders liable for what
gets "forwarded" ???

now what if we used "store-and-forward" technology, either in the air or on
the ground ...

quite honestly, from all I hear about the "legal conisderations" regarding
Stargate, I'd be afraid to moderate a group there, or, at least, would feel
that I'd have to "censor" a lot more than I'd really feel needs to be done
at such an alternative, or on the Usenet as it currently exists.  Well,
you look a "gift-horse" in the mouth and you find both a bill and teeth
that might snap at you .....

I still think Stargate will perform a useful service, but I'd be sad if all
other communication channels should go away in the process (which I doubt).
but I do believe that some form of moderating or limiting the distribution
of articles unless approved for wider distribution by some form of
reader-concensus (as the article gets read by more and more people) is
needed.  And I'm not looking for something fail-safe or unbeatable, just
something that reduces the swamping of the net with improper articles.

---Werner	(I'm not planning to participate actively in this discussion
		 further, just got inspired by Henry's posting to voice a
		 "suggestion" that someone might think worth following up to.)