Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!magore
From: magore@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Defending Eric Mading
Message-ID: <4143@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Date: Sun, 22-Nov-87 13:33:01 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.4143
Posted: Sun Nov 22 13:33:01 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Nov-87 02:21:51 EST
References: <7427@eddie.MIT.EDU> <1853@chinet.UUCP> <7439@eddie.MIT.EDU> <34296@sun.uucp> <7460@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: magore@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 63

[ I'm only addressing the issue of First Amendment Rights and liability ]

Hello Mikki,

In article <7460@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes:
[munch...]
>Damaging property is quite different from using one's First Amendment rights.

	However the issue was that some seem under a false assumption that 
the Constitutional right protecting freedom of speech somehow includes full 
liability coverage protecting their ability to lie, slander , phone in false 
bomb treats, yell 'fire' in a crowded theaters or make others pay their
distribution costs. 

Also [ as many likely know ] there are _separate_ issue here:

	rights protecting free speech initially 
	-vs-
	rights protecting liability thus incurred.  

	Say for example, if a doctor said that "eating poison is good for young 
children" would he then later be exempt from possible criminal charges because 
of first amendment rights ? 
[rhetorical, ... no the first amendment rights are not even being questioned.]

	One of the problems with this issue is that some feel that when the 
second issue is being dealt with that the first issue [ freedom of speech ]
is being infringed. 

[munch...]
>The legal view has always been that as long as there is no rule against it,
>it is legal UNTIL such a rule is made against it.  Since it has not been
>decided whether libel laws apply here, 

	In other words, if there are not yet any cases of someone willfully
libeling someone on, say a crowded elevator, that you imply it's legal ?! :-)
[rhetorical, ... no, it may not be that simple]

				and since the Usenet has not come up
>with its own rules for governing itself, arbitrary yanking of accounts is
>something I feel is wrong.  

	nonsequitur

	Since there are no strict rules for governing usenet then, 
almost by definition , what you will see will appear 'arbitrary' and 
therefor 'wrong'. What you may need to do is attempt to address what you 
feel is 'right' and work backwards to a system that would fit your view 
and see how many agree with it. I think such an effort would be worthwhile.


[munch...]
>Mikki Barry

	I fully agree, that as you and others have suggested, that more 
information on this topic should be included in the document distribution 
for news...

Best Regards,

# Mike Gore 
# Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home )
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.