Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!plaid!chuq
From: chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings.
Message-ID: <30876@sun.uucp>
Date: Wed, 14-Oct-87 12:11:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.30876
Posted: Wed Oct 14 12:11:03 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Oct-87 04:54:29 EDT
References: <1606@dasys1.UUCP> <354@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd
Lines: 27
Xref: mnetor news.admin:1173 misc.legal:3134

>Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of
>the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to
>persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander?

Well, first because it is very unlikely that a court would allow it to stand
even if we did adopt it (they're not hot on enforcing explicit contracts.
Why should they accept an implicit contract?)

Second, USENET doesn't exist. The individual sites on USENET do, but there
is no central authority that could create such a policy. Each site could
adopt the policy, but since the primary threat for a lawsuit on such a thing
would come from a user on a remote site (which probably doesn't have the
policy on board)it doesn't really mean anything.

Third, the policy isn't enforceable. How are you going to stop them from
suing? Kick them off the machine? (big deal...)

Fourth, do you REALLY want a USENET where someone who is truly libeled has
no recourse? Think about that one.  Much as I hate the thought of having
USENET end up in court, I hate the thought of being unable to take that step
more. May it never be needed, but...

chuq
Chuq Von Rospach					chuq@sun.COM
Editor, OtherRealms					Delphi: CHUQ

Bye bye life!  Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die.