eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (07/18/88)
holy shit. this is going to make the JJ episode seem like a walk in the park. from where i sit, i can see that many folks are trying to get under Mark's skin -- they've practically been begging Mark to try out some Latin and go to court. it will be interesting to see what the court says to Mark when he tries to subpoena people for using feminine pronouns on usenet. in my opinion, it's a fluff lawsuit and a waste of everyone's time and money. but so was all the 'MES-baiting' in the first place. good luck to all -- i hope everything turns out ok...
nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Prime Minister) (07/19/88)
In article <1481@spdcc.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >holy shit. this is going to make the JJ episode seem like a >walk in the park. from where i sit, i can see that many folks >are trying to get under Mark's skin -- they've practically been >begging Mark to try out some Latin and go to court. > >it will be interesting to see what the court says to Mark when he >tries to subpoena people for using feminine pronouns on usenet. >in my opinion, it's a fluff lawsuit and a waste of everyone's time >and money. but so was all the 'MES-baiting' in the first place. >good luck to all -- i hope everything turns out ok... This is a potential tragedy for the net, and the effect could extend to any form of bulletin board. Most places on the net would very likely close up shop if a site is sued, regardless of the resolution, as who would want the hassle? If that is Mark's goal, then it is a rather destructive goal. From what I understand of the issue, it is very unlikely to be EEO/AA, as, as far as I know, no one is employed by the net itself. Certainly, there are people employed by sites, but not by the net as a whole. If Mark has an EEO complaint, it would be directed at a company on the net who has discriminated. Difficult to prove that any job action was caused purely by the comments of others, as any inflamatory comments made by Mark could easily be used as the reason to deny employment. If the issue is access to the net, that is clearly a non-issue, as Mark already has access. If there is an issue, it is harrassment. It should be easy to identify sites where the harrassment originated, and act accordingly. A law suit should only be contemplated after any efforts at resolving the matter out of court have been exhausted. (Side note: If there is a complaint about the actions of a user, the system administrator ought to take action. If the sys-admin does nothing, they are not doing their job well, and may be partially liable.) Mark, have you contacted the system administrators of the machines from which the harrassment has allegedly originated? The perpetrators ought to be easily identified by the administrator. Have the administrator's actions been adequate? Only after these actions are taken, and only if the result is unsatisfactory, should you consider legal action. I suspect that the law would dismiss the suits except against the specific harrasser and the appropriate system administrator. There is a precedent that the telephone company is not liable for harrassing telephone calls, and as the intermediate machines are similar transmitters only, I suspect that the arguments used there would have validity. (Of course, it is equally likely that those machines will leave the net anyway, to avoid the nuisance of further law suits.) Furthermore, be very careful with law suits! You are very likely to be hit with counter suits of harrassment, defamation of character, etc... You are also not very likely to be able to extend EEO/AA laws to private machines: None of these machines are rights, Usenet is not a right. In summary, I strongly recommend against this action.