Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ukma!ukecc!vnend
From: vnend@engr.uky.edu (D. V. W. James)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings.
Message-ID: <1640@ukecc.engr.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 8-Oct-87 13:31:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: ukecc.1640
Posted: Thu Oct  8 13:31:51 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Oct-87 09:37:04 EDT
References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2050@kitty.UUCP> <2071@kitty.UUCP> <1544@homxc.UUCP> <30049@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: vnend@engr.uky.edu (D. V. W. James)
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Univ. of KY Engineering Computing Center
Lines: 19
Xref: mnetor news.admin:1135 misc.legal:3040


	I would just like to update Chuq's reference.  In a course on Media 
Law this summer I did some research on the Usenet liability question.  As
Chuq said, it is a legal nightmare.  And as of July 1987 I could find only
one case of a BB operator (the closest equivalent to a USENET sysadmin) 
being arrested for ANY action taken by his users (and that was credit card
fraud.)  The charges were later dropped.  There have been, as of that date
, according to my search through U Ky's law library, *no* cases of libel 
stemming from BB useage.  Studies on the problem simply agree that there is
a problem, but opinions differ widely as to just how liable admins should be
held.  If anyone is interested in the cases and studies I found, just send
me a note, I still have the paper online somewhere...


-- 
Later y'all,             Vnend            Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure.                        
cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!vnend;  vnend@engr.uky.edu;  vnend%ukecc.uucp@ukma.BITNET             
    Also: cn0001dj@ukcc.BITNET, Compuserve 73277,1513 and VNEND on GEnie                  
            I may be smart, but I can lift heavy things.