Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!pyramid!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!rutgers!uwvax!uwmcsd1!marque!ddsw1!karl From: karl@ddsw1.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: Working for the Government Message-ID: <308@ddsw1.UUCP> Date: Sat, 7-Nov-87 11:19:08 EST Article-I.D.: ddsw1.308 Posted: Sat Nov 7 11:19:08 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Nov-87 06:33:06 EST References: <5624@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1750@geac.UUCP> <2199@kitty.UUCP> <5797@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL Lines: 81 Keywords: evasion again In article <5797@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP () writes: >[Non-relavent material deleted] >There is the strong possibility that the previous employer (the Navy, >by the way) will use those articles in a court case which may or may not >happen. That will bring the net into exactly the situation which members >of this newsgroup have frequently discussed with trepidation--a legal >ruling regarding the net. (I could be wrong on this, but this is as I see it). Wrong -- the thing that people fear is an action regarding libel or slander VIA the net -- not the use of net information to establish a person's state of mind, their general mental demeaner, or character -- which is what has been suggested. THIS use would, at worst, only establish the admissibility (or lack thereof) of net postings as evidence in a civil proceeding, and then only as to the general state of mind of the person who allegedly posted the articles. >From the email I have received, it has become clear that my fears that >he would succeed in censorship were unfounded. There are still a variety >of other problems upon which I would very, very much appreciate the advice >of these readers: what should the readers of soc.women do? Nothing -- except perhaps ignore the person giving you grief and hope that extinction (in the psychological sense) works. >what should >someone (like myself) who has disagreed with Mr. Lippman do given that he >has demonstrated he will contact system administrators and previous >employers? Nothing once again - except that people should *THINK* before they post crap like that which has been making the rounds on Usenet of late. >how ethical was it to give potential parties to a lawsuit >newsnet articles? See below. >Thanks, >skyler What's the problem? *FLAME ON* Where do you get off on suggesting that *any* PUBLIC DOMAIN information is not and should not be available to the parties in a suit? Or that an organization, which is being ATTACKED (which is what you're being when you're sued) does not have the right to use said PD info in their proceedings to defend themselves. Remember, folks, if you don't want to have your butt broiled for what you have said in this medium, DON'T POST IT. Complaining after the fact that this is not a legitimate use of the information is not only useless, but wrong. Since you've put the info in the public domain, it is quite proper for anyone to use it in any way they desire. Period. I post many controversial opinions to this medium. I also realize that these postings may be circulated, and accept the risk knowingly, given that this is, as a whole, a publically available medium (there is a cost of entry, but that is true for *any* medium of mass distribution, from printed material onward). One of the *best* checks and balances on people who are using a medium like this is the POSSIBILITY that said articles *WILL* be given to other parties -- former and future employers, parties to a suit, the FBI, you name it. Without *that* check on people's actions there'd be a lot more crapola on the net than there is now. THINK BEFORE YOU POST -- then this becomes a non-issue. *FLAME OFF* -- Karl Denninger UUCP : ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl Macro Computer Solutions Dial : +1 (312) 566-8909 (300-1200) "Quality solutions at a fair price" Voice: +1 (312) 566-8910 (24 hrs)