Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!steve
From: steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Responsibility for postings.
Message-ID: <403@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Oct-87 12:11:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: nuchat.403
Posted: Sat Oct 17 12:11:18 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Oct-87 12:57:48 EDT
References: <1606@dasys1.UUCP> <354@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 33
Summary: I don't think that will work
Xref: mnetor news.admin:1191 misc.legal:3161

In article <354@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>, stevens@cascade.STANFORD.EDU (Greg Stevens) writes:
> 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? Perhaps the
> system administrators of the backbone sites could fomulate such a
> policy and generate the text of some release message that will be
> displayed to first time posters ( similar to the startup message
> of "rn" ) Couldn't the existance of such a policy put to rest any
> future incidents such as this one? Comments?

A noble idea, and I would like to live under a legal system in
which it would work.  But I don't think it would work under present
U.S law.  Individual responsibility is not in style in this country,
and people generaly target their suits for maximum probable return
rather than with a sense of justice.

Also, I think that this would be found to be quite weak protection
legally, much as the shrink-wrap licenses and most warranty disclaimers
are pretty much worthless.  I think the warranty disclaimer theory is
directly relevant - when you market something you have certain legal
responsibilities to the customers that you cannot weasle out of by
printing a disclaimer; the disclaimer is not illegal per say, it 
simply carries no legal force where it is contradicted by some law.
(such disclaimers may be partially effective, for instance in limiting
consequential damage claims and such.)

Similarly, I suspect that if it were found that the site or the usenet
itself had "published" a libelous article, such a diclaimer would
have no protective effect.
-- 
Steve Nuchia	    | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy.
uunet!nuchat!steve  | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be
(713) 334 6720	    | infallible, it cannot be intelligent.  - Alan Turing, 1947