Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!dnlunx!gew
From: gew@dnlunx.UUCP (Weijers G.A.H.)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Mark Ethan Smith: For real?
Message-ID: <276@dnlunx.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Oct-87 07:15:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: dnlunx.276
Posted: Wed Oct  7 07:15:59 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Oct-87 03:44:53 EDT
References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2050@kitty.UUCP> <10725@sri-spam.istc.sri.com>
Organization: Dr Neher Laboratory (PTT)
Lines: 28
Summary: Legal liability of Usenet

To make the issue of email and news even muddier: who is publishing
what? If someone in the US puts an excerpt from (for instance) Spy Catcher,
a book published by an ex-MI5 agent and banned in the UK,
on the net, and this article is forwarded to the UK, who, if
anyone, can be prosecuted? The originator (SC is legally available in the US),
the backbone site system administrator, or every SA in the UK?.
Under US or UK law?

Is the SA of a site *forwarding* a libelous article guilty of anything?
Legislation is not keeping up with new possibilities. The only practical
proposal in my view is to make the *originator* the publisher,
otherwise public access data bases might be impossible to run in the future.
I'll probably be old, gray and cranky before this issue gets sorted out.

Anonymous paper mail is still the easiest way to verbally abuse people,
whilst escaping any consequences.

NOTE: I work for a telecommunications administration, but this is my
*personal* view. I don't know the particular legal situation in the
Netherlands, but libel is not a large industry here (no millions of $$
in damages).

PS. I can't cross-post to misc.legal, not a valid group here.
-- 
Ge' Weijers                       {verbose disclaimer omitted}
PTT Dr. Neher Laboratories        address change (15th of october)
Leidschendam, the Netherlands     
uucp:  {uunet!}mcvax!dnlunx!gew   uucp: {uunet!}mcvax!hobbit!ge