Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!kitty!larry
From: larry@kitty.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Mark Ethan Smith: For real?
Message-ID: <2068@kitty.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Oct-87 00:52:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: kitty.2068
Posted: Sun Oct  4 00:52:40 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Oct-87 07:45:52 EDT
References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2050@kitty.UUCP> <8710030835.AA26492@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY
Lines: 63
Summary: This is not a case of "annoyance"...

In article <8710030835.AA26492@garnet.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU writes:
> >Since someone has recommended throwing off Mark Ethan Smith for the nth
> >time, I feel obligated to support his continued presence. 
> 
>   I concur. Considering the stuff Mr. Maroney, for instance, has
> pulled without prejudice to his ability to post, it would
> scarcely be fair to yank Mark E. Smith's account for the "crime"
> of annoying people.

	In my particular issue concerning "Smith", I am not referring to
"annoyance".  I am not referring to expressing opinion.  I am not referring
to issues of "freedom of speech".  I am referring to the commission of
libel.  You do agree, do you not, that there are "bounds" to freedom of
speech?
	Anyone has the right to express opinion.  Usenet is no different
from a newspaper: anyone can pretty much say anything whose "truth" is
doubtful as long as it is qualified as an OPINION, and NOT AS A FACT.
	Examples of acceptable statements under most circumstances are:

1.	I believe X has committed criminal acts.
2.	X has probably committed criminal acts.
3.	In my opinion, X has committed criminal acts.
4.	X seems like a person who has committed criminal acts.
5.	X is alleged to have committed criminal acts.

	Now, there has to be SOME basis for expressing the opinion in order
to be truly free from committing libel, but there is quite a bit of leeway
provided such qualifying lanaguage is used.
	What one canNOT state without incurring liability (unless it is true)
is:

6.	X has committed criminal acts.

	Stating (6) above in writing constitutes libel, provided that: (1)
the statement is in fact false and (2) the person making the statement knew
it to be false.  Proving that the person making the false statement did so
with "intent" to commit harm may or may not be an issue, depending upon
circumstances.
	All it takes to "weasel" out of a libelous situation is to use a
"qualified" form of making the statement, such as (1) to (5) above, and
to establish SOME "information and belief" for making the statement.

	In at least two incidents "Smith" did not use such a "qualifier",
and in at least one incident "Smith" committed the tort of libel.  Notice
that I represented AS A FACT that libel was committed by "Smith".  So you
can be reasonably sure that I am certain of my ground.

	So the point is: I am concerned with "Smith" using the electronic
publication of Usenet as a means to commit the act of libel; NOT any
possible acts of annoyance.  Libel == injury != annoyance.
	And this is why I call upon system administrators to evaluate
whether they should allow a person such as "Smith" to have Usenet access.

	And quite frankly, I suggest that anyone who does NOT have
responsibility for site administration stay out of this discussion.  
Based upon my experience, maximum freedom is usually advocated by those
with minimum responsibility - so I already KNOW what the opinion of most
non-administrators will be.

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
<>  UUCP:  {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  VOICE: 716/688-1231       {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/
<>  FAX:   716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes}   "Have you hugged your cat today?"