Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ooblick
From: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Defending Eric Mading
Message-ID: <7461@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 21-Nov-87 11:21:41 EST
Article-I.D.: eddie.7461
Posted: Sat Nov 21 11:21:41 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Nov-87 03:38:01 EST
References: <1043@pbhyd.UUCP> <25092COK@PSUVMA> <6851@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Reply-To: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 57

In article <2041@terminus.UUCP> nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Brickyard) writes:

>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.

Of course we want to avoid test cases.  I sincerely believe that if
there is a test case that in any way holds sysadmins or sites responsible
for postings, the Usenet will go away.  However, our legal system
is based on the fact that unless there is a law or internal rule against
action, that action is legal.

>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.

The rules on defamation of character show that you must show actual damage
in order to be compensated.  Especially if a judge finds that you make
yourself a "public figure" by simply posting to the net.  None of this
is yet clear.  Nobody is saying that anyone here is "above the law".
We just are not sure if the same laws apply here.  And what damages
can "Jews" seek because Eric Madding said nasty things about them
in alt.flame?  There are many unclear issues at stake here. It is not as
clear cut as some would like to believe.

>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?

Nobody, right.  However, shouldn't the first action be to ask Eric to clean
up his act and stop posting the libelous articles?  (And as I recall, there
were no clearly libelous articles that he posted, just some very stupid ones)
It is quite possible that Eric was too stupid to know that he was treading
on this ice.  A warning would have been more appropriate, if he did, in
fact libel someone instead of just posting stupid personal opinions.

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

No, not all of us.  But forcibly removing those who are limits the freedom
of those who are not.

>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.

And it may be that a strong set of rules for netwide policy will keep those
cases from coming to court in the first place.  My point is that since there
are no such rules, we really don't have any leg to stand on.

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

So would I, if we could decide how and when it applies here.

Mikki Barry