leff@smu.UUCP (11/27/83)
#N:smu:15100003:000:578 smu!leff Nov 26 13:14:00 1983 An interesting legal question. Do we classify as a newspaper for the purposes of libel laws, etc. That is if one of us sends out a note saying that computer x has a fifteen percent return rate, would we be subject to the newspaper standard that we have to be doing that with malice or a 'reckless disregard for the truth' for a libel prosecution. Would the owners of computers on the net be subject to prosecution for 'publishing' such information. I am not planning to send out such a note in the forseeable future, just think this might spark some interesting discussion.
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (11/29/83)
The concept of "The Press" as a magic separate entity is kind of
curious. There is obviously a continuum from people who write single
letters or talk to single other persons over the phone through people
who mimeo newsletters with ten or a hundred copies or who talk as
amateur radio operators over the air where others can easily listen to
publications with circulations in the thousands or tens of thousands,
local radio and tv station, etc., to national networks and publications
in the millions of copies. Anything which tries the distinguish "The
Press" from non-press sounds like nonsense to me.
+ Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deeward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (12/02/83)
Newspapers are only provided with such protection against libel (malice or reckless disregard for truth) when reporting on "public figures". Of course, since the media decides who is or is not a public figure, that is little protection for the private public. Still, I would not think that, even if the net were considered a newpaper, it would protect against defamation of a company. -- Michael Ward seismo!hao!sa%ward decvax!brl-bmol!hao!sa%ward ucbvax!hplabs!hao!sa%ward allegra!nbires!hao!sa%ward
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (12/07/83)
I insist that the boundary between "The Press" and not-"The Press" is
inherently a blurr in any society with freedom of the press. You can
tell Doctors (in the medical sense) from non-Doctors by whether they are
licensed by the state and you can tell The Press that way in some
countries. While there are some things like this in the USA (I think to
get a Massachusetts "News Photog" automobile license plate, which tends
to let you through fire/police lines, you have to be a full time
photogrpaher working for a daily publication or a broadcast station)
they are relatively rare.
The original query involved a legal questions and my reply was to
indicate that I did not think there was a sharply defined group
that was The Press with a markedly different legal status such that
the question could be answered by some mystic decision as to whether
usenet was part of "The Press" or part of not-"The Press".
My use of amateur radio was poor. Consider it to have been replaced by
low power radio broadcasting via power line conduction or, if that is
illegal these days, by standing on a soap box and talking to the passing
crowd or using a physical bulletin board with the same size of audience.
+ Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deeneal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (12/09/83)
************************************************************************** I feel a need to expand on this topic somewhat. Regardless of our status vis-a-vis the "press", we need to remember that this is a PUBLIC forum. We intend anything we put here to be read by a large number of people (I think that's the legal definition of "publish" by the way.) We ARE subject to laws concerning libel, etc. In fact, I suspect that we have the worst of both worlds in that we don't have some of the protections recently extended to the press. I'm not a lawyer so I don't want anyone to think that this is legal advice. Are there any lawyers out there who might be willing to clear some of this up?? Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
leimkuhl@uiuccsb.UUCP (12/13/83)
#R:hao:-75100:uiuccsb:9900031:000:882
uiuccsb!leimkuhl Dec 12 23:16:00 1983
Perhaps the best way to look at this is with a judge's eyes. If
someone is sued for placing libelous material on the net, a trial
judge will try to find experience that relates to the new medium. It
is typical in law to seek precedent (sometimes in convoluted form) for
any particular.
I think the best analogy is to a public bulletin board. So the
question really is this:
If you pin a slanderous letter on a public bulletin board, would
the slandered party have legal grounds for compensation?
In most cases the answer is yes, and probably network authors have
done more than that, since they have in effect duplicated (perhaps
"published") the slander.
Another question: do letters mailed (electronically or otherwise)
containing slander constitute legal offense?
Ben Leimkuhler
(uiucdcs!uiuccsb!leimkuhl)
(Maybe we should move to net.legal?)