Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!lll-tis!mcb
From: mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings.
Message-ID: <21761@lll-tis.arpa>
Date: Wed, 7-Oct-87 16:22:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-tis.21761
Posted: Wed Oct  7 16:22:06 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 09:43:50 EDT
References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA
Lines: 57
Xref: mnetor news.admin:1123 misc.legal:3018

In article <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> stever@videovax.Tek.COM 
(Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes:
> 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.

Not at all. Mr. Lippman has the same legal outlet as any other person
who believes that he or she has been defamed: to file a suit against
the author of the alleged defamatory material.  All I did was point
out that site liability as a "publisher" of defamatory material is not
a matter of settled law (which Mr. Lippman seemed to assert) but is merely 
a theory under which relief might be sought. 

> 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.

True, of course. But getting a court to hear it -- and in this case we
are talking about an appellate court, since it is a matter of the
interpretation of common law -- means that some parties have to got
through the ridiculously expensive and time-consuming business of
litigation.  I don't think anyone's interests, even Mr. Lippman's,
would be served by this.

> [...] 
> 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.  [...]
> 
> 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?  

Precisely what I am worried about, and frankly, I worry much more
about this than about whether Larry Lippman was defamed or not, or
whether Mark Ethan Smith's free-expression rights are being infringed
or not, or about the Brahms Gang/Tim Maroney brouhaha, or the Foothead
business,  or any similar cases.  

Therefore, my attention is not directed to whose ox was gored, but
instead on those who have attacked Usenet by threatening users and
their sites with legal or administrative sanctions.  To those people
-- you know who you are -- I ask: Do you REALLY want to do this? 
Do you understand the consequences, and endorse them?

Michael C. Berch 
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis.arpa
UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb