Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!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: <4626@videovax.Tek.COM> Date: Thu, 15-Oct-87 17:09:44 EDT Article-I.D.: videovax.4626 Posted: Thu Oct 15 17:09:44 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Oct-87 10:49:54 EDT References: <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> <2294@umn-cs.UUCP> <1606@dasys1.UUCP> <354@cascade.STANFORD.EDU> Reply-To: stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) Organization: Tektronix Television Systems, Beaverton, Oregon Lines: 100 Summary: There are some positive steps we can take! Xref: mnetor news.admin:1180 misc.legal:3148 In article <2294@umn-cs.UUCP>, Dave Meile (davidli@umn-cs.UUCP) suggested that we end all the speculation about what might happen if a libel case were filed against one or more USENET sites by ". . . forc[ing] a test case to get it over with once and for all...." This may be typical of the views of uninvolved bystanders: "Let's you and him fight!" Robert Sweeney (rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP) wasn't fond of Dave's suggestion! Mr. Sweeney, one of the owners of dasys1, responded in article <1606@dasys1.UUCP>: > But not with us, please. 'dasys1' ( . . . ) is owned and operated by > two college students, myself, and the person who received the phone call > from Mr. Lippman regarding the lawsuit. Our personal budgets are typical > of the average college student. . . . We can't afford to handle any > sort of legal action; we definately can't hire a lawyer. If we're > sued . . . we'll just shut down . . . This is precisely the attitude that > 99% of the system owners and administrators will take if suits begin to be filed. Most will take *preventive* steps, to avoid the possibility of being sued -- i.e., they will remove net access *before* problems start! In article <354@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>, Greg Stevens (stevens@cascade.STANFORD.EDU) proposed an alternative solution: > 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? . . . A fundamental principle the courts hold is that you cannot voluntarily relinquish rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution or by law. For example, you are not legally bound if you sign an employment agreement which reads: Because Gigantic Monopoly, Inc. has been kind enough to give me a job, I hereby resign and irrevocably give up all right to file complaints against Gigantic Monopoly, Inc. with any agency of the State or Federal government (or government at any other level), including, but not limited to, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I also agree not to testify against Gigantic Monopoly, Inc. in any administrative proceeding or court case. Agreeing to give up your right to sue for slander or libel would be an equally invalid agreement. So the $64,000 question is, "Can we do anything at all?" I think we can. Kyle Jones sent me a letter to which I responded by email. Kyle replied: > Your comments really make good sense. Post what you wrote to me to > news.admin. The private correspondence I have had with other > system/news administrators leads me to believe that it is not the > administrators that are siding with the flamers. Rather it is news > readers that want to get in on a good argument. Given Kyle's good judgement and persuasive arguments, how could I resist? [ 8^) ] To be serious for a moment, I think the suggestions contained in the letter will help: = I think there are some things that can be done to reduce the problem. = = One is for those of us who abhor unsubstantiated personal attacks to, = in general, side with the "injured" party, rather than reflexively = sticking up for the "right" of the flamers to say anything they want = without incurring any liability (in the mistaken notion that this is = what "freedom of speech" means). This would accomplish two goals: = = 1. Put the flamers on notice that they will not get the kind of = approval they have been seeking (and up until now, receiving). = = 2. Give the injured party the feeling that there are a lot of = people out there who care about him and who are supporting = him. This will lessen the tendency to for the injured party = to feel, "Some turkey defamed me and now these yoyos are = sitting around laughing about it. I'll show them! I'll sue!" = = Another is, in your words, "the guillottine." Each news administrator = (or system administrator) is going to have to be cognizant of the = problems his users are causing -- at least when it gets to the point that = complaints are filed. If complaints are filed, the administrator needs = to sit down with the person and discuss the postings in question. If = the postings are indeed defamatory (meaning there is no evidence to = back up the charges), then the administrator should warn the user and = yank his account and/or news access if malicious postings continue. = = Harsh? No. Just real world. As has been pointed out by others, the = user has little to lose (unless he is sued personally). The system = owner and the system administrator have a lot to lose, on the other = hand. Therefore, they need to be prepared to deal with problems = before the situation gets out of hand (being served with a summons = to appear in court is a clear sign that things are out of hand. . .). Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever