Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Larry Lippman vs. Mark Ethan Smith
Message-ID: <2582@alvin.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Oct-87 14:43:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: alvin.2582
Posted: Sun Oct 11 14:43:11 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Oct-87 22:35:55 EDT
References: <1939@midas.TEK.COM> <1514@dasys1.UUCP> <7070@eddie.MIT.EDU> <3995@ecsvax.UUCP> <2089@kitty.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@alvin.UUCP (Byron C. Howes)
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Lines: 50
Xref: mnetor misc.legal:3087 news.sysadmin:402

In article <2089@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
>In article <3995@ecsvax.UUCP>, bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) writes:
>> If anyone called me and tried to get me to yank one of my users ids on the
>> basis of the remarks similar to those attributed to Mark Ethan Smith I would
>> (1) laugh because I'd think it was someone putting me on and (2) hang up
>> once I discovered it was serious.
>
>	First of all, the specific issue being addressed involves users
>who post articles containing serious defamatory statements which have a
>resonable expectation of causing damage to the business or professional
>standing of third parties.  The issue being addressed does NOT pertain to
>alleged "free speech" or the proper expression of ideas, however
>controversial they may be.

I never said it did.  Why, pray tell, are you putting words in my mouth like
that?  I am responding specifically to your assertions about articles posted
by Mark Ethan Smith.  I assume no greater context or set of principles than
do you.  I have not seen any evidence of "articles containing serious defama-
tory statements which have a reasonable expectation of causing damage to 
business or professional standing if third parties."  I remember correctly
Mark's allegedly libelous statement begins "If you're the Larry Lippman
I've heard of..." -- a conditional which is deniable by you and nonspecific.
Even Mark suggests at this point that you are *not* the Larry Lippman he has
heard of.

>	Your attitude in (2) above that you would "hang up" demonstrates
>a crass indifference to the responsibilities of an administrator in behalf
>of his organization, and is precisely the type of attitude that WILL result
>in someone's determination to "test the legal issues".

Absolutely not.  My duty as a systems administrator is to keep my systems
running in all respects.  I am paid for that.  I am not paid to pass judgement
on the articles people post or to consider the merits of arguments that my
users should have their ids pulled.  Even one minute spent with some bozo
who asserts that she does not like articles posted from my machine is time
spent away from my duties.	

>	If a person actually takes the time and spends the money to call you,
>then it must be a serious matter to SOMEONE.  The least that a responsible
>administrator should do is: (1) ascertain the nature of the caller's problem;
>(2) find out what action the caller wants you to take; (3) investigate the
>matter firsthand; and (4) get back to the caller.  If you can agree on a
>course of action fine; if not, you have at least tried to resolve the matter.

I'll buy (1) and (2)  above -- I think that is implicit in my posting, but
(3) and (4) seem warrented only if (1) and (2) constitute prima facie
indication of a problem.  In your case they do not.  That was the thrust of
my comment. 
-- 
Byron C. Howes  (bch@ecsvax)