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: <4614@videovax.Tek.COM> Date: Thu, 8-Oct-87 13:22:14 EDT Article-I.D.: videovax.4614 Posted: Thu Oct 8 13:22:14 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Oct-87 10:14:29 EDT References: <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> <2488@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <2679@xanth.UUCP> <21761@lll-tis.arpa> <30227@sun.uucp> Reply-To: stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Organization: Tektronix Television Systems, Beaverton, Oregon Lines: 97 Summary: Our primary concern should be survival of the USENET. Xref: mnetor news.admin:1137 misc.legal:3044 Jeff Forys (forys@sigi.Colorado.EDU) responded (in article <2488@sigi.Colorado.EDU>) to my concern about the effects a lawsuit would have on USENET: > In article <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> Steven E. Rice, P.E. writes: >> Suppose just the backbone sites and a scattering of other sites received >> a subpoena demanding a copy of their news history file. > > Suppose a disk crashed and a couple backup tapes were mistakenly placed > near a magnet ... Following Watergate, some people spent time in jail because of this kind of ill-considered (and illegal) activity. Are you volunteering to follow in their footsteps? Kyle Jones (kyle@xanth.UUCP) disagreed (in article <2679@xanth.UUCP>) with my assessment of the potential for danger to the USENET: > In <4611@videovax.Tek.COM>, Steven E. Rice, P.E. writes: >> 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 is ridiculous. I suppose if a local DJ slandered a famous > personality (and they do that a lot around here) and I had the radio > on I would be liable as well. Of course not! But the analogy is ill-chosen. Suppose instead that you owned a local radio station that was carrying a network program which defamed a citizen of your community. Who do you think would be sued? Let me guess: 1) The program's producer and director. 2) The network that distributed the program. 3) The local radio station that carried the program. Both the local radio station and the network have an easy escape from liability, though -- they can broadcast a public apology. (There may be situations in which even that does not get them off the hook, though.) >> 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? > > Unknown. But I think the plaintiff of such a suit would have a hard > time gathering evidence of the malicious intent of hundreds of system > administrators who were probably asleep (unaware) when the offending > article was forwarded. It is my understanding (Mr. Berch, please straighten me out if I am wrong!) that "malicious intent" is only a consideration in the case of "public figures" (whatever that chances to mean on the day the court considers the case). In the case of a private citizen, the question becomes simply, "Are the statements true?" Whether or not Mr. Lippman would qualify as a "public figure" is an open question. Jeff, Kyle, and others (yes, you too, Chuq -- article <30227@sun.uucp>) are missing the most important point in all of this while picking at nits. USENET does not exist as a profit center which corporations are prepared to defend. Nor is the USENET a central educational activity that Universities are prepared to champion before State and Federal courts. If a broad lawsuit were filed against the USENET in general, or against a few prominent site owners and administrators, the results would be catastrophic! Faced with the potential (note that I did not say the *actuality* -- simply the *potential*) of unlimited liability for postings over which they have no control, those who own the machines will simply pull the plug on USENET. I expressed this concern in my previous posting (<4611@videovax.Tek.COM>). In his comments on my posting (in article <21761@lll-tis.arpa>), attorney Michael C. Berch (mcb@lll-tis.arpa) concurred with my concerns: > Precisely what I am worried about . . . It may seem to be harmless fun to disregard both reality and reasonableness when sitting down to write a blast at someone you don't know. However, in the real world, actions have consequences. All it would take is one person who decides he won't put up with being falsely accused, and the fat is in the fire. The writer would find that defending himself against such a suit (even if he were eventually held to be not liable) would be a very expensive and time-consuming experience. There would be consequences for the rest of us, too -- even though we are not directly involved in the verbal warfare. One potential consequence of use of the network as a tool for broadcasting defamatory statements is the utter destruction of USENET. Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!se-ID:t