Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!konstan
From: konstan@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Konstan)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings. (was ...)
Message-ID: <21182@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.21182
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 09:35:36 EDT
References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2050@kitty.UUCP> <2071@kitty.UUCP> <1544@homxc.UUCP> <30049@sun.uucp> <1014@looking.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: konstan@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Joe Konstan)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 14
Keywords: Libel of Public Figures
Xref: mnetor news.admin:1122 misc.legal:3017

[I'm probably going to regret getting involved, but]

There is one aspect here which hasn't been mentioned.  Legally, the proof
of libel is MUCH harder when dealing with public figures and officials than 
with ordinary people.  [This is how tabloids can survive!]  Given that 
USENET is a limited circulation medium, and one in which any member can 
"write" and "have published" a large number of articles, it would be 
quite reasonable for a court to rule that an individual who voluntarily posts
frequently to the net is a public figure on the net, therefore requiring a 
much stricter interpretation of libel.

--
Joe Konstan
konstan@ernie.berkeley.edu