Xref: utzoo soc.culture.indian:10947 news.groups:7380 news.misc:2601
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!husc6!yale!Ram-Ashwin
From: Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,news.groups,news.misc
Subject: Re: Propreity (sp?) of making specific allegations on the net.
Message-ID: <50486@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 13 Feb 89 14:04:54 GMT
References: <11491@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram)
Distribution: soc
Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 115
In-reply-to: ankgoel@violet.waterloo.edu (anil k goel)

In article <11491@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, ankgoel@violet.waterloo.edu (anil k goel) writes:
> It has been sometime since I posted last and I am really disturbed by a
> surge of articles making very specific allegations against Indian citizens,
> institutions,etc. during the recent past. The articles which come to mind
> concern  the indian "layman",IE/Arun Shourie,Air India,Indian Airlines 
> among others.
> 
> Now, what I am objecting to is not the criticism per se, but the following
> facts: [...some points deleted...]
> 
>   . very specific allegations of serious natures have been made and these
>     allegations taken at their face value can have devastating effect on
>     the image of Indian citizens/institutions and even the Indian society
>     in many cases.
> 
>   . the allegations are circulated worldwide.
> 
>   . while making these allegations, the respective authors seem to have
>     this smug feeling that since the people they are accusing do not have
>     a chance of replying back, they can get away with anything.
> 
> I think the accused persons deserve a chance to explain their side of
> the story (specially if the allegations are of a non-trivial nature), and
> to ensure that this happens I propose mailing a verbatim hardcopy of the
> articles posted to the person. Once, that is done, it is upto the person/
> institution to decide whether to ignore the matter altogether or to request
> posting of their side of the story (I am ready to do the dirty job of 
> mailing them the hardcopies and then typing out their responses) or to
> start libel proceedings against the accusors in a suitable court of law,
> or to take any other action they consider appropriate.
> 
> I believe the above is NOT censorship because all that I am proposing is 
> a basic implementation of the right to know about what has been said about
> your person and than have a chance to defend yourself.
> 
> I would like to hear from others on this matter.

Anil,

This is a difficult issue.  On the face of it, your suggestion seems
reasonable.  Since the articles are already broadcast all over the world, you
are not violating anyone's privacy by forwarding them to anyone else you
choose to.  The people being discussed certainly deserve a chance to explain
their side of the story, and I think most people interested in the
discussions would be interested in hearing what they have to say.

On the other hand, there is a real danger that these people do not understand
the newsgroup media.  USENET is a new and powerful media for communication,
and it has its own little set of rules.  The legal issues will be decided
only when cases (like the libel cases you mention) begin to be contested, but
so far USENET does not, and in my opinion should not, depend on the courts of
law to monitor its use.

There is no libel when no-one is there to listen to the accusations.
Similarly, there should be no libel when intelligent people partake in a
discussion.  For example, if you post accusations about me on the net, what
should I do?  The law says I can sue you for libel.  However, USENET is based
on a different philosophy.  According to this, I can reply to your message,
defend myself, present arguments and evidence, etc., and then let the netters
at large decide who they wish to believe.  In the worst case, if you are
truly malicious, you can probably ruin my image, but until it goes that far
(and few discussions do) I don't think I would take you to a court of law.

I do not believe that there was any libel involving IE or Arun Shourie.  (As
you can tell, I'm not a lawyer, but then I think most people are too
trigger-happy when it comes to suing.)  I personally did not agree with
Hemant's opinions, but I think he has the right to post them.  People argued
on both sides of the issue.  The readers read both arguments and made up
their own minds.

That's the way I think things should be handled.  Arun Shourie and anyone
else should certainly have the opportunity to respond to the allegations.
However, taking them to a court of law, in my opinion, defeats the purpose of
USENET.  Theoretically, you could argue that there is no censorship, but if
IE takes Hemant to a court of law, given Hemant's limited resources (time,
money), do you think he would stand a chance?  Is it his job to fight a legal
battle with IE?  More importantly, do you think he would be inclined to voice
his opinions again?  We should encourage people to post their opinions, not
discourage them.

The point is that Arun Shourie probably does not understand this philosophy,
and if he is inclined to do anything at all, he will probably go the legal
route.  [If you don't buy this, just consider what happened to the
rec.humor.funny issue.  Read some of the newspaper reports that were
published in the Canadian newspapers.  People have a serious misunderstanding
of what the USENET is all about.]

Having said this, I agree that people who voice opinions on the net ought to
be held (intellectually) responsible for them.  (I don't know what this would
mean in a legal sense.)  People should not be allowed to post anonymously or
from guest accounts, from accounts about to expire, and from any other
accounts where they can hide behind false identities.  Perhaps this will be
possible to enforce, but if not I think it is a small price to pay for the
freedom of USENET.  Also, just because someone accuses someone else of
something doesn't mean that everyone on the net automatically buys what he is
saying.

Sorry for carrying on so long, but you did ask for opinions.  My opinion is
that it would certainly be a good idea to mail hard-copies of the discussions
to the people concerned, and post their reponses on the net.  It would not be
a good idea to encourage these people to start banging on the doors of our
courts.

One way this could be accomplished is to delete the From lines from the
discussions (after all, Arun Shourie should be replying to the allegations,
not to a particular individual).  On the flip side, this would remove
accountability and encourage people to post unsubstantiated and malicious
opinions.

I don't know what the best solution is, but these are some of the issues that
I would consider.  Comments are welcome.

Good luck,

-- Ashwin.