Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ho95e!homxb!mhuxt!mhuxm!mhuxo!ulysses!terminus!nyssa
From: nyssa@terminus.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Defending Eric Mading
Message-ID: <2041@terminus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Nov-87 09:09:59 EST
Article-I.D.: terminus.2041
Posted: Thu Nov 19 09:09:59 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 18:38:56 EST
References: <1043@pbhyd.UUCP> <25092COK@PSUVMA> <6851@ut-ngp.UUCP> <7427@eddie.MIT.EDU> <1853@chinet.UUCP> <7439@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Brickyard)
Organization: Terminus
Lines: 46
Xref: utgpu news.admin:1233 news.sysadmin:397

In article <7439@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes:
>One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real 
>world".  Saying something nasty about somebody else here is not the
>same as harrassing them on the street, or threatening them by phone,
>or hanging around outside their house.  You do not HAVE TO read the net.
>You do not HAVE TO respond when someone baits you.  Thusfar, Usenet has
>had no "test cases" regarding slander or libel, therefore right now, all
>is fair game.

This is a very bad thing to say...  Until somebody stops me, I will
continue to do blank.  What people want to do is not fight the test
case, but avoid the test case and watch one's own shop; self
policing to prevent external (legal) policing.

Saying something nasty here *is* the same as saying it on the street;
if I can show damage by what is said here, I can seek recompense 
through the legal system.  You cannot incorporate yourself to
be above the law.

>               There are no rules. There are no guidelines.  And as far
>as I can tell, at the first sign of a real "test case" the academic
>sites and the backbones will pack it in.  Who in their right mind wants
>to censor each and every article before it goes out because of a 
>threat of lawsuit hanging over your head?

Nobody, true.

But if a user at a site shows a consistant tendancy to post potentially
libelous articles, it would (probably) be negligent on the part of
the system administrator if steps were not taken to stop the articles.
Who here wants to fight a suit for contributory negligence?

>"Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if
>we are to keep this an open and public forum.

Really?  Are we all so immature that we must harrass?

This net can be a stronger net without harrassment and personal attacks.
If there is a clear netwide policy not to tolerate such actions, then
there is a stronger position in court for any potential suit.

>                                               Those wishing to change
>it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide
>what is and is not acceptable for posting here. 

I'll happily accept international law concerning slander and libel.