Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekfdi!videovax!stever From: stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings. Message-ID: <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> Date: Tue, 6-Oct-87 14:47:06 EDT Article-I.D.: videovax.4611 Posted: Tue Oct 6 14:47:06 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Oct-87 23:37:15 EDT References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Organization: Tektronix Television Systems, Beaverton, Oregon Lines: 59 Summary: The situation is not cut and dried. Xref: mnetor news.admin:1113 misc.legal:3004 There have been a number of articles posted recently (see the "References:" line) about whether it is or is not possible to sue the originating site for libelous postings. In article <21748@lll-tis.arpa>, Michael C. Berch (mcb@lll-tis.arpa) pointed out that the law in this area is not settled. (Mr. Berch is an attorney.) The general tone of Mr. Berch's posting seemed to imply that Mr. Lippman's outrage had no legal outlet. In my humble (i.e., not $200 per hour) opinion, Mr. Berch, Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@sun.COM, in his recent article <30049@sun.uucp>), and others are overlooking something serious. Remember that the law in this area *is* unsettled, so new theories (as long as not completely off-the-wall -- and maybe even then!) would of necessity be given a hearing in court. While the author of an allegedly libelous article might be anonymous, or difficult to find, the sites are neither anonymous nor (in general) difficult to find! Often they are located at the headquarters of companies (large or small), or in University computer rooms. And the control of and responsibility for those computing facilities is quite easy to determine. If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the newsgroups that contained the article in question. This could be done on the theory that each site that made the article available to be read was in fact a "publisher" of the article, and therefore had committed the crime of libel. Given an ambitious lawyer prepared to pose a number of undecided issues to the court, such a suit could drag on for years. . . What do you think would happen to USENET if such a suit were filed, naming the owners and administrators of all the sites in the USENET map as defendants? Suppose just the backbone sites and a scattering of other sites received a subpoena demanding a copy of their news history file. (The contents of the history file would provide an indication of whether or not the site in question had received the article.) How many companies, universities, and whatever feel the USENET is important enough to justify the expense involved in defending themselves against such a suit, let alone being willing to risk continued exposure to a liability of unknown magnitude? (The courts are erratic enough these days that it is impossible to predict the outcome!) If such a suit were filed, how many sites would dump USENET as a precaution, even though they weren't named as a defendant? Fine legal theories explaining why USENET sites have no liability for articles posted are just theories until tested in court. While USENET might prevail after a lengthy legal battle, such a contest would likely cause the disintegration of the network. It is sad to win a battle and in the winning, lose the war! Perhaps it is asking too much, but if we all behave ourselves in a civilized manner, it will not become necessary to find out what the courts might decide. . . Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever