weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/26/86)
I would like to ask the legal experts if the following would be grounds for libel/slander or the like out in the real world. (I am aware that electronic bulletin boards are questionable as evidence.) The statements are completely false and require an extremely twisted misreading of my postings. I would like to ask the powers that be if they plan to let this garbage continue. Money is spent transmitting this stuff. And if they are grounds for libel, then this user is repeatedly using the net for illegal activity. I am directing all followups to net.news only. Message-ID: <2749@pyuxd.UUCP> >Aren't I just awful for pointing this out? Aren't I "rude"? I make >no apologies. Let Matthew Wiener tell his "side" of things, the side of >history that leaves out pogroms, ghettoization, inquisitions, holocausts, >as if they never happened. Message-ID: <2773@pyuxd.UUCP> > As Wiener, you have posted drivel of the sort "well, I was >brought up by anti-Christian Jews, and only recently have I learned of >the real goodness of Christianity", denying the importance or even the >existence of sanctioned and condoned religious persecution of your supposed >ancestors. Message-ID: <2789@pyuxd.UUCP> > Matt would say "but, gee, I learned >after renouncing Judaism and later learning about Christianity that it >wasn't bad, that history isn't the way I thought it was, that Christianity >isn't guilty of things like the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Crusades, >the Holocaust, etc. despite what everyone says". ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (03/27/86)
> [Flamage and accusation of libel/slander by Matthew Weiner against > Rich Rosen, and "complaint" to "powers that be" about Rich's postings...] To be brief, the postings Mr. Weiner complains about do NOT comprise defamation, for a number of sufficient reasons, the most important of which is that they are obviously, beyond any shadow of doubt, to any conceivable reader of the newsgroup(s), OPINION. Though I am an attorney (among other things), I don't feel the need to post a discourse on the law of defamation, but I DO feel the need to defend freedom of expression in general, Usenet in specific, and Rich Rosen in particular. What irks me particularly is that Mr. Weiner has posted (by my count) at least nine articles to net.religion during the last two weeks (the expiration period on our machine), more than half of which contain flamage, accusations of bias, emotional language, and the like. Why, then, does he find it necessary to single out various paragraphs of Rich Rosen's articles (which, out of context, seem to me more puzzling than offensive) and cry foul? The reason I care enough about this to post this is that Usenet exists by the sufferance of the management of hundreds of private firms and government agencies, many of whom would be inclined to drop participation if the net became more controversial than it already is. Mr. Weiner's inaccurate allegations of defamation do nothing to improve this sitation. Whether the net or its members could be held liable for postings if in fact defamatory articles were posted is a issue for another time; I'd advise those interested to read the material presented at the January 1985 Usenix conference by the noted attorney Susan Nycum and some of the research done by Lauren Weinstein with regard to the Stargate project. I do not presume to give legal advice to Mr. Weiner, and if he continues to feel be has been defamed (after the legal research he should have done in the first place) I urge him to seek counsel. My belief, however, is that his remedy is to continue to publish his opinions in the appropriate newsgroups (NOT net.news!) or else leave the net if he considers the tone of discourse offensive. Michael C. Berch attorney, consultant, and news administrator ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb