alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/05/91)
In <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) writes: >>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes... >>>alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes: >>> In many bookstores, one can buy >>>books that (1) recommend marijuana growth and use, (2) describe >>>how to grow hemp indoors and outdoors, and (3) how to best avoid >>>getting caught. >>As the PHREAK trials have shown there is a difference between printed media >>and electronic media. Though one can also look up some scientific periodicals >>(Botanical Gazette comes to mind) and find article about growing it. > So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? There isn't one. But the politicos are trying very hard to pretend there is, so they can try - again - to pass laws which aim to reducing rights and freedoms. They were stopped when they tried it with print media, but now they are taking advantage of the general ignorance and apathy to pull the wool over our eyes. >David Barberi -- William "Alain" Simon UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP
revpk@cellar.UUCP (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) (06/06/91)
alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes: > In <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I wi > >>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes... > >>>alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes: > >>> In many bookstores, one can buy > >>>books that (1) recommend marijuana growth and use, (2) describe > >>>how to grow hemp indoors and outdoors, and (3) how to best avoid > >>>getting caught. > >>As the PHREAK trials have shown there is a difference between printed media > >>and electronic media. Though one can also look up some scientific periodica > >>(Botanical Gazette comes to mind) and find article about growing it. > > So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? > > There isn't one. But the politicos are trying very hard to > pretend there is, so they can try - again - to pass laws > which aim to reducing rights and freedoms. They were stopped > when they tried it with print media, but now they are taking > advantage of the general ignorance and apathy to pull the wool > over our eyes. > > >David Barberi > -- > William "Alain" Simon > UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP Precisely-- in fact, these days, most print media is in electronic form at one point or another. I imagine that most people would raise a hue and cry if the _New York Times's_ data files were confiscated by the government, because to most people, the _Times_ is a better example of the Press to be kept free than, say, the arcane and technical world of Usenet. ====================================================================== Brian Siano, aka [ "Mr. A. Hitler, the old Nazi thing, says [ Mickey's silly. Imagine that! Well, Mickey is Rev. Philosopher-King [ going to save Mr. A. Hitler from drowning or [ something some day. Just wait and see if he revpk@cellar.UUCP [ doesn't. Then won't Mr. A. Hitler be ashamed!" [ -- Walt Disney, 1933. ======================================================================
alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/07/91)
In <STANTON.91Jun4142432@lurch.stanford.edu> stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) writes: >[...] > So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? >One big difference is that the contents of electronic media sometimes >looks like print and sometimes looks like speech. And since which it >is often depends on "tricky details" like context, the legal system >seems to have decided to punt on the issue for now and afford it >neither set of protections. Interesting point that leads to the next questions: Why should there be a distinction between speech and the printed word? Isn't it an artificial split? Does it correspond to an objective difference? >--Scott Stanton (stanton@cs.stanford.edu) -- William "Alain" Simon UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP
alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/07/91)
In <1991Jun05.183440.29680@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) writes: >> So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? > Idiot juries, judges, and lawyers understand print media, and they >do not understand electronic media. Let's begin by making sure WE understand, then we can TELL THEM. After, wish tomorrow good luck. > zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM -- William "Alain" Simon UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP
stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun7.102950.1658@elevia.UUCP> alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes:
Interesting point that leads to the next questions:
Why should there be a distinction between speech
and the printed word? Isn't it an artificial split?
Does it correspond to an objective difference?
William "Alain" Simon UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP
The distinction is more between "press" and "speech". I think it
originally was a valid distinction since the printed word had a much
greater reach than the spoken word. Even today, the press often has a
greater perceived validity than speech. But I'm not sure the
distinction is as easy to make now that we have radio, tv,
audio-visual recordings, and most recently, electronic mail and
bulletin boards. Now that desktop publishing makes "press" just as
easy as "speech", there may not be as much difference.
One problem with trying to unify the two concepts, though, is that
they are afforded different protections under the law now. Not being
a lawyer, I don't know what all of the distinctions are, but I believe
there is a higher standard of truth required of the press. It also
gets particularly tricky when you start adding in copyright laws. If
I copy your entire message without your prior permission, is that a
copyright violation? It certainly isn't if it is considered to be
speech, but it might well be under the printed word umbrella.
--
--Scott Stanton (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)
--rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) (06/12/91)
alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes: > In <STANTON.91Jun4142432@lurch.stanford.edu> stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scot > >In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr. > >[...] > > So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? > >One big difference is that the contents of electronic media sometimes > >looks like print and sometimes looks like speech. And since which it > >is often depends on "tricky details" like context, the legal system > >seems to have decided to punt on the issue for now and afford it > >neither set of protections. > > Interesting point that leads to the next questions: > > Why should there be a distinction between speech > and the printed word? Isn't it an artificial split? > Does it correspond to an objective difference? > > >--Scott Stanton (stanton@cs.stanford.edu) > -- > William "Alain" Simon > UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP [Sorry for leaving in the entirety of those two, but...] The main difference between speech and print is not in protection, but in proof. The distinctions between slander and libel are not simply the fact that one is spoken and the other written: in a slander case, the alleged defamation must be verified by witnesses; in a libel case, the written document stands as evidence. Electronic media can have the relative permanency of printed matter by being saved on disk, much as speech can be preserved on tape. Tape recordings, however, are often barred from court proceedings depending how the taped evidence was obtained. Computer files are more volatile and malleable than print and audio - Anyone may design a file that looks genuine but is actually corrupt. Thus, any case involving electronic documents furnished as proof should be subject to corroboration and analysis. If someone alleges libel against a user on a bulletin board, for example, the evidence presented by both parties could be different, even though they are allegedly the same post/article. One copy of an electronic document (even if it has been printed) should not be considered sufficient evidence. Rachel K. McGregor : Let the fire be your friend : Call the a/k/a Rogue Winter : And the sea rock you gently : Cellar at rogue@cellar.uucp : Let the moon light your way : 215/336-9503 {tredysvr,uunet}!cellar!rogue : 'Til the wind sets you free : BBS & Usenet
alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/12/91)
In <STANTON.91Jun10132339@lurch.stanford.edu> stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.102950.1658@elevia.UUCP> alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes: > Why should there be a distinction between speech > and the printed word? Isn't it an artificial split? > Does it correspond to an objective difference? >The distinction is more between "press" and "speech". I think it >originally was a valid distinction since the printed word had a much >greater reach than the spoken word. Even today, the press often has a >greater perceived validity than speech. But I'm not sure the >distinction is as easy to make now that we have radio, tv, >audio-visual recordings, and most recently, electronic mail and >bulletin boards. Now that desktop publishing makes "press" just as >easy as "speech", there may not be as much difference. And if you have indulged in a bit of NeXT-Mail or explored virtual universes, then the fine line simply disappears. >--Scott Stanton (stanton@cs.stanford.edu) -- William "Alain" Simon UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP
stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) (06/13/91)
In article <0wFe44w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes:
Electronic media can have the relative permanency of printed matter by being
saved on disk, much as speech can be preserved on tape. Tape recordings,
however, are often barred from court proceedings depending how the taped
evidence was obtained. Computer files are more volatile and malleable than
print and audio - Anyone may design a file that looks genuine but
is actually corrupt.
An important distinction between audio tape and electronic media is
that the audio tape is barred as evidence not because it is unreliable
or suspect, but rather because it was obtained by methods the court
wishes to discourage. Unlike an audio recording which requires
considerable effort to forge, an unencrypted electronic document is
trivial to forge given currently available technology.
Thus, any case involving electronic documents furnished as proof should be
subject to corroboration and analysis. If someone alleges libel against a
user on a bulletin board, for example, the evidence presented by both parties
could be different, even though they are allegedly the same post/article.
One copy of an electronic document (even if it has been printed) should not
be considered sufficient evidence.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here, but I would take it further. I
would want there to be some proof beyond a simple account id on the
message that the article did in fact originate from the defendant.
And I would also like to see laws akin to the wiretapping prohibitions
that would rule inadmissable electronic evidence secured improperly
(e.g. by hacking a user's password and looking at their private
email).
Rachel K. McGregor
--
--Scott Stanton (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)
--alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/14/91)
In <0wFe44w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: >alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes: >>In <STANTON.91Jun4142432@lurch.stanford.edu> stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scot >>>In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr. >>>[...] >>> So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? >>>[ ... ] >> Why should there be a distinction between speech >>[ ... ] >The main difference between speech and print is not in protection, but in >proof. The distinctions between slander and libel are not simply the fact >that one is spoken and the other written: in a slander case, the alleged >defamation must be verified by witnesses; in a libel case, the written >document stands as evidence. No dispute with what you are saying. Print has force of authenticity. Speech and electronic media don't. But this is not a reason to differentiate between the two when it comes to giving them protection under the law. >Rachel K. McGregor -- William "Alain" Simon UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP