robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (11/13/84)
The billboard/phone-phreak case has reached the New York Times (Monday Nov 12 issue). A long story is very short on facts and long on concerns about censorship and liability. I presume the shortage of facts is related to the case being currently prosecuted. Still, is there a reliable, objective dicussion available anywhere of what probably happened? I have two questions: (1) It would be easier to talk about this case if we knew how to pronounce the sysops' name. Can anyone who knows for sure post it? (Thomas Tcimp...) (2) The crucial case issue in law appears to be: to what extent is an electronic bulletin board a publisher, and to what extent is it a carrier? Carriers are generally not responsible for the content of their messages, and publishers are. I think the global issue was not addressed properly by the NYT, nor on the net -- If bulletin boards are publishers, then how many other companies that THINK they are in the carrier business are actually also publishers? It is possible that nearly everyone in the store-and-forward business could be treated as a publisher also. S+F services INTEND to screen none of the messages they forward, and IN GENERAL messages they handle are sent from one person to one (or a few others) person. But there is nothing to prevent a S+F message from being sent to most of the potential audience, and nothing to prevent the S+F service from screening before forwarding. Thomas T. apparently intended to operate as a S+F service, leaving much data unscreened. If he had required the sender of every message to provide a specific list of addressees (selected from his user population), it's hard to see any difference in the possible "crime". Therefore, in my mind, this case attacks not only bulleting boards, but every company that intends to store and forward messages among individuals in different places. I would appreciate public comment. By the way, I'll reiterate another point I strongly believe in: This is not primarily a "free speech" issue. It's a case to decide if we have a set of laws applicable to regulate this type of commerce. Entities that are not part of the government, nor monopolies, have wide discretion to control what they will publish or relay. We rightfully hold them responsible in many cases to prevent the publishing of scurrilous, damaging-and-false information that attacks individuals not easily able to defend themselves appropriately. If we choose to have government-run bulletin boards, then the bill of rights will be a key factor in determining their content. - Toby Robison allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison alternate: princeton!eosp1!robison