avsdS:avsdT:wcl (12/15/82)
I am no legal buff, nor lawyer, but here's a thought: If the net is merely an open-air conduit for information (ala Citizen's Band), and this is made clear, and no implication is given that there is, in any way, an "official" net source of information, then by rights we should be free and clear. To be otherwise would create "sacred" branches of discourse, much as we had in Medieval times, where those not blessed by the hierarchy are specifically forbidden from speaking on the sacred subject. I, for one, greatly fear the day this comes to pass (and there are many indicators it *IS* coming). Any attempts to route this material through a screening source, or "competent" expert, create the very trouble they seek to avoid. The MD who does the screening then becomes the victim of choice for lawsuits; he would have to be crazy to take on the responsibility. Simililarly for any other "network administrator", at least if his function relates to the information content of messages (as opposed to the creation of newsgroups). Is there a way to deal with these constant fears on the part of netreaders? Could we (dare I suggest) have a newsgroup for would-be net administrators, lawyers, etc. to work out these issues? If there are any serious infractions being committed on the net, 99% of us aren't going to know anyway if they are or aren't. Let's get some people who are both seriously interested, and qualified, and let them discuss it in net.lawsuits! Bill Lindemann ucbvax!atd!avsdT:wcl AMPEX Corporation Redwood City, CA