chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (01/01/70)
>Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof. Can >I demonstrate with certainty that <30049@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach? >No. But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from >him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!", >then it is extremely likely that he posted it. Well, its obvious why I didn't complain about the forgery. I didn't see it. Webber notwithstanding, it's physically (and psychologically) impossible to read the entire net, and I stopped reading this group months ago. How can I defend myself against something I know nothing about? Of course, I didn't post this message either, since I didn't see Brad's response. Hmm... Perhaps I don't exist. You never know. Has anyone ever thought that chuqui might be an advanced AI program undergoing test at the NSA? Or even just line noise outside of ihnp4? It boggles the mind.... I think I'm chuq, but what does that prove..... -- Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die.
konstan@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Konstan) (01/01/70)
[I'm probably going to regret getting involved, but] There is one aspect here which hasn't been mentioned. Legally, the proof of libel is MUCH harder when dealing with public figures and officials than with ordinary people. [This is how tabloids can survive!] Given that USENET is a limited circulation medium, and one in which any member can "write" and "have published" a large number of articles, it would be quite reasonable for a court to rule that an individual who voluntarily posts frequently to the net is a public figure on the net, therefore requiring a much stricter interpretation of libel. -- Joe Konstan konstan@ernie.berkeley.edu
ldm@homxc.UUCP (L.MARCO) (10/05/87)
In article <2071@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > > [ " An admin/site is legally responsible for postings originating there " ] > > "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3) > publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the > author. Most libel suits name only the publisher as a defendant > [...] > 1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles > (and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users > post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if > users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/? Well, Hmmm.... My reaction to this is "And just what state have *you* passed the Bar in, Larry ? " 1/2 :-) What's the legal definition of "publish", anyway ? I think that posting propietary source is different; it's not supoosed to be left 0666, so there's a difference between that && someone's ideas, twisted as they may be... I suppose you might be able to make a case for AT&T being negligent in letting mentally unstable individuals on the net, but you'd still have to prove that the posting originated here.... Then you'd have to prove that poster actually posted it... Then you'd have to prove that we could have prevented it from happening... Then you'd have to prove that what was said was a lie... Haven't we been through this before ? Lou Marco
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/06/87)
[I'm going to regret this... ] >> "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3) >> publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the >> author. Most libel suits name only the publisher as a defendant Problem one: identification. Prove that a given person posted a given posting. Think that is simple? I can name a number of ways to tracelessly forge postings. I do not believe it is possible to prove to the requirements of a court of law that ANYTHING happened on USENET, much less than any specific person did any given event. Problem two: publishing. Unless Larry knows of a precedent I don't know of, nobody has shown in a court of law that an electronic BBS or anything even remotely like USENET does any kind of publishing. It is just as likely that they would be considered a common carrier, in which the person doing the posting is liable, but not the folks carrying the material. Problem 3: precedent. Unless Larry is a lawyer specializing in communication and computer law and knows of some precedent setting cases that I haven't heard of, he's talking through his hat. According to a talk given by Susan Nycum (generally regarded as the top expert in computer law in the country) a couple of years ago at Usenix, nobody has any idea what to expect if something like this got to court. There is no holding precedent to base this stuff on. Larry is making generalizations that don't have any basis in fact. >> 1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles May be. It isn't proven (I wouldn't expect it to not be the case, though -- better conservative than sorry. Do YOU want to be the precedent setter?) >> (and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users >> post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if >> users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/? Well, Source code is a whole different issue, and is covered by Trade Secret agreements in your Source License that you signed your life away on. It has no bearing to 'normal' usenet postings. > What's the legal definition of >"publish", anyway ? Good question. Since usenet does not have any 'publish date' per se, and since usenet does not have an 'issue', and it is not copyrighted (except in specific articles) and it has no editor, editorial influence, publisher, publishing house/address or any organization at all, a good argument can be made that Usenet is not published. A (in my opinion, for what that's worth) better definition of usenet is a cooperative common carrier. Sort of like the community billboards in the student union. you certainly wouldn't hold Stanford liable for something J. Random Schizoid puts on their public corkboards, would you? Then again, maybe you would. I doubt a court would... > I suppose you might be able to make a case for AT&T being negligent >in letting mentally unstable individuals on the net, but you'd still have to >prove that the posting originated here.... This can't be done. I don't want to put proof out on the net, since it might come back to haunt us, but there are a number of ways to get around usenet security. >Then you'd have to prove that poster >actually posted it... See above. >Then you'd have to prove that we could have prevented it >from happening... Based on the design of the usenet software, this is impossible, of course, unless you can prove that the site should have known that the user was likely to do this kind of nasty libelous posting and refused them access to the net completely. That would be VERY hard to prove, by the way. >Then you'd have to prove that what was said was a lie... Probably the hardest part... Libel isn't nearly as easy as you think it is to prove. Thank Ghod. I don't know what would be worse; being the layer prosecuting a case like this, being the lawyer defending a case like this, or being the judge. we're talking major legalistic nightmare. Let's hope it never happens. [find side comment. I'm a layman, so while I've studied this stuff for years because of my tenure and interest in USENET, I can't be considered an expert. Except at ways of getting around USENET security. And I won't tell about that. Your mileage may vary. Consult tax attorney before investing] chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die.
brad@looking.UUCP (10/06/87)
In article <30049@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >[I'm going to regret this... ] > >Problem one: identification. > Prove that a given person posted a given posting. Think that is > simple? I can name a number of ways to tracelessly forge postings. > I do not believe it is possible to prove to the requirements of a > court of law that ANYTHING happened on USENET, much less than any > specific person did any given event. It's true you can't PROVE a posting came from somebody, and that means that you could probably never get criminal prosecution over something posted to usenet. Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof. Can I demonstrate with certainty that <30049@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach? No. But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!", then it is extremely likely that he posted it. If there were a forgery, you would have to show the court why you didn't point it out until you were served with the suit. The court might believe you and they might not, but it's up to them. The principle of reasonable doubt does not apply in civil litigation. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (10/06/87)
There have been a number of articles posted recently (see the "References:"
line) about whether it is or is not possible to sue the originating site
for libelous postings. In article <21748@lll-tis.arpa>, Michael C. Berch
(mcb@lll-tis.arpa) pointed out that the law in this area is not settled.
(Mr. Berch is an attorney.) The general tone of Mr. Berch's posting seemed
to imply that Mr. Lippman's outrage had no legal outlet.
In my humble (i.e., not $200 per hour) opinion, Mr. Berch, Chuq Von
Rospach (chuq@sun.COM, in his recent article <30049@sun.uucp>), and others
are overlooking something serious. Remember that the law in this area
*is* unsettled, so new theories (as long as not completely off-the-wall --
and maybe even then!) would of necessity be given a hearing in court.
While the author of an allegedly libelous article might be anonymous,
or difficult to find, the sites are neither anonymous nor (in general)
difficult to find! Often they are located at the headquarters of
companies (large or small), or in University computer rooms. And the
control of and responsibility for those computing facilities is quite
easy to determine.
If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he
might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending
article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the
newsgroups that contained the article in question. This could be done on
the theory that each site that made the article available to be read was
in fact a "publisher" of the article, and therefore had committed the
crime of libel. Given an ambitious lawyer prepared to pose a number of
undecided issues to the court, such a suit could drag on for years. . .
What do you think would happen to USENET if such a suit were filed,
naming the owners and administrators of all the sites in the USENET map
as defendants? Suppose just the backbone sites and a scattering of other
sites received a subpoena demanding a copy of their news history file.
(The contents of the history file would provide an indication of whether
or not the site in question had received the article.)
How many companies, universities, and whatever feel the USENET is
important enough to justify the expense involved in defending themselves
against such a suit, let alone being willing to risk continued exposure
to a liability of unknown magnitude? (The courts are erratic enough
these days that it is impossible to predict the outcome!) If such a suit
were filed, how many sites would dump USENET as a precaution, even though
they weren't named as a defendant?
Fine legal theories explaining why USENET sites have no liability for
articles posted are just theories until tested in court. While USENET
might prevail after a lengthy legal battle, such a contest would likely
cause the disintegration of the network. It is sad to win a battle and
in the winning, lose the war!
Perhaps it is asking too much, but if we all behave ourselves in a
civilized manner, it will not become necessary to find out what the
courts might decide. . .
Steve Rice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com
old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!steverchuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/07/87)
>In my humble (i.e., not $200 per hour) opinion, Mr. Berch, Chuq Von >Rospach (chuq@sun.COM, in his recent article <30049@sun.uucp>), and others >are overlooking something serious. >While the author of an allegedly libelous article might be anonymous, >or difficult to find, the sites are neither anonymous nor (in general) >difficult to find! That's not strictly true. The ability to prove the origin of a message (either site OR poster) is impossible on the network. It is possible to create forged messages that show no trace of origin. Without such an audit trail, you can't prove without doubt that the message actually came from where it claims to have come without an admission by the actual poster. For proof, see the continuing running joke of messages from 'moscvax" and its variant each April. Or you can ask Mark Horton where that message in mod.announce came from last April (hint: it wasn't from him). If anyone wants definite proof of this, I'll happily post a message from the (fictitious!) account/site of your choice to this group. I can even route it through sri lanka or perhaps one of the research camps in antartica if you want... >If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he >might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending >article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the >newsgroups that contained the article in question. I wasn't ignoring this, as was claimed above. This is, in fact, a major concern. If a site is considered to be publishing, then all other sites may well be considered to be 'distributors' in the same flavor as a book distributor or a bookstore might -- and there are circumstances where a bookstore has been held liable for (primarily obscene) material in their shop. In most cases, however, it doesn't stick and I don't know of a single case where a distributor has been held to any liability in a libel case. On the other hand, if the net is considered a common carrier (and my belief is that it would) then there is no liability, because the network does not have any input or control of the programming -- they distribute it with their eyes closed, in other words. The only liability is with the people/organization that generated the programming -- and as I've mentioned above, proof of the generation would be difficult to impossible. Tough calls on all sides. The bottom line, as I see it (and remember, I'm just a very interested layman who's done research) is this: we have absolutely no idea how the court will REALLY judge a case like this. There are no precedents. We can make educated guesses, but the courts are notoriously unreliable about acting intelligently, especially when high technology and unfamiliar territory is reached. We want to avoid setting precedents to the greatest extend possible. They are expensive, time consuming, and don't really solve anything. Worse, the network exists on good faith and a lot of handwaving. What do you think the FIRST thing any company will do if its lawyer gets a lawsuit over some network the corporation doesn't even know exists? It will pull the plug. No company in its right mind will spend lots of money trying to protect USENET. It'll pull out and try to cuts its losses. If the companies that hold the net together start pulling out, the net dies. I think it is in everyone's best interest to avoid that. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die. Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die.
mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch) (10/07/87)
In article <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes: > There have been a number of articles posted recently (see the "References:" > line) about whether it is or is not possible to sue the originating site > for libelous postings. In article <21748@lll-tis.arpa>, Michael C. Berch > (mcb@lll-tis.arpa) pointed out that the law in this area is not settled. > (Mr. Berch is an attorney.) The general tone of Mr. Berch's posting seemed > to imply that Mr. Lippman's outrage had no legal outlet. Not at all. Mr. Lippman has the same legal outlet as any other person who believes that he or she has been defamed: to file a suit against the author of the alleged defamatory material. All I did was point out that site liability as a "publisher" of defamatory material is not a matter of settled law (which Mr. Lippman seemed to assert) but is merely a theory under which relief might be sought. > In my humble (i.e., not $200 per hour) opinion, Mr. Berch, Chuq Von > Rospach (chuq@sun.COM, in his recent article <30049@sun.uucp>), and others > are overlooking something serious. Remember that the law in this area > *is* unsettled, so new theories (as long as not completely off-the-wall -- > and maybe even then!) would of necessity be given a hearing in court. True, of course. But getting a court to hear it -- and in this case we are talking about an appellate court, since it is a matter of the interpretation of common law -- means that some parties have to got through the ridiculously expensive and time-consuming business of litigation. I don't think anyone's interests, even Mr. Lippman's, would be served by this. > [...] > If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he > might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending > article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the > newsgroups that contained the article in question. This could be done on > the theory that each site that made the article available to be read was > in fact a "publisher" of the article, and therefore had committed the > crime of libel. [...] > > What do you think would happen to USENET if such a suit were filed, > naming the owners and administrators of all the sites in the USENET map > as defendants? Precisely what I am worried about, and frankly, I worry much more about this than about whether Larry Lippman was defamed or not, or whether Mark Ethan Smith's free-expression rights are being infringed or not, or about the Brahms Gang/Tim Maroney brouhaha, or the Foothead business, or any similar cases. Therefore, my attention is not directed to whose ox was gored, but instead on those who have attacked Usenet by threatening users and their sites with legal or administrative sanctions. To those people -- you know who you are -- I ask: Do you REALLY want to do this? Do you understand the consequences, and endorse them? Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis.arpa UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) (10/08/87)
In <4611@videovax.Tek.COM>, Steven E. Rice, P.E. writes: > If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he > might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending > article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the > newsgroups that contained the article in question. This is ridiculous. I suppose if a local DJ slandered a famous personality (and they do that a lot around here) and I had the radio on I would be liable as well. > What do you think would happen to USENET if such a suit were filed, > naming the owners and administrators of all the sites in the USENET map > as defendants? Unknown. But I think the plaintiff of such a suit would have a hard time gathering evidence of the malicious intent of hundreds of system administrators who were probably asleep (unaware) when the offending article was forwarded. kyle jones <kyle@odu.edu> old dominion university, norfolk, va usa
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (10/08/87)
In article <30232@sun.uucp>, chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof. Can > >I demonstrate with certainty that <30049@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach? > >No. But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from > >him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!", > >then it is extremely likely that he posted it. > > Well, its obvious why I didn't complain about the forgery. I didn't see it. > Webber notwithstanding, it's physically (and psychologically) impossible to > read the entire net, and I stopped reading this group months ago. How can I > defend myself against something I know nothing about? Well, it is neither impossible nor necessary in this case. Try: nice find /usr/spool/news -type f -exec fgrep chuq {} \; -print >& x & If you do it regularly, you can even throw in a -newer to cut down on the amount of time it takes. If you don't want all references (like the ones in soc.culture.indian to you), you can match on the appropriate From: string. Of course, it is an easy thing to generate a message that never appears on your machine, but is still seen by a substantial portion of the net. For that matter, it is even possible for someone to edit a message that you actually sent or even cancel all of your denial messages. It is also possible to prevent your site from seeing any news messages that contain your name in them. It is possible for you to become the moderator of talk.bizarre. Welcome to the T W I L I G H T Z O N E -------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber) impossible: contraction of ``imp possible,'' which is idiomatic for ``it is possible that an imp would do it.'' impossible: standing for ``I Might Pull Off Something Slightly Impossible By Locating Elves.'' impossible: adjective used to describe the likelihood that a logician would shave a barber.
davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) (10/08/87)
In article <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes: >There have been a number of articles posted recently (see the "References:" >line) about whether it is or is not possible to sue the originating site >for libelous postings. In article <21748@lll-tis.arpa>, Michael C. Berch >(mcb@lll-tis.arpa) pointed out that the law in this area is not settled. >(Mr. Berch is an attorney.) The general tone of Mr. Berch's posting seemed >to imply that Mr. Lippman's outrage had no legal outlet. >....[text removed] >If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he >might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending >article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the >newsgroups that contained the article in question. This could be done on >the theory that each site that made the article available to be read was >in fact a "publisher" of the article, and therefore had committed the >crime of libel. Given an ambitious lawyer prepared to pose a number of >undecided issues to the court, such a suit could drag on for years. . . I am getting rather tired of all of this rather meaningless speculation. If everyone is so scared of the possible outcomes, we should force a test case to get it over with once and for all.... Then people such as Mr. Lippman will no longer have to read "difficult" material on USENET, since it will obviously shut itself down. And the Internet will be much less crowded, since mailing lists will close themselves down, etc. On the other hand, the courts may just decide that "individuals are responsible for their own words" and put an end to this discussion. -- Dave Meile davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu davidli@vx.acss.umn.edu davidli@simvax.bitnet
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (10/08/87)
Jeff Forys (forys@sigi.Colorado.EDU) responded (in article <2488@sigi.Colorado.EDU>) to my concern about the effects a lawsuit would have on USENET: > In article <4611@videovax.Tek.COM> Steven E. Rice, P.E. writes: >> Suppose just the backbone sites and a scattering of other sites received >> a subpoena demanding a copy of their news history file. > > Suppose a disk crashed and a couple backup tapes were mistakenly placed > near a magnet ... Following Watergate, some people spent time in jail because of this kind of ill-considered (and illegal) activity. Are you volunteering to follow in their footsteps? Kyle Jones (kyle@xanth.UUCP) disagreed (in article <2679@xanth.UUCP>) with my assessment of the potential for danger to the USENET: > In <4611@videovax.Tek.COM>, Steven E. Rice, P.E. writes: >> If Mr. Lippman were a litigious person, it is very possible that he >> might file suit against not just the site that originated the offending >> article, but against *all* sites on the USENET that carried *any* of the >> newsgroups that contained the article in question. > > This is ridiculous. I suppose if a local DJ slandered a famous > personality (and they do that a lot around here) and I had the radio > on I would be liable as well. Of course not! But the analogy is ill-chosen. Suppose instead that you owned a local radio station that was carrying a network program which defamed a citizen of your community. Who do you think would be sued? Let me guess: 1) The program's producer and director. 2) The network that distributed the program. 3) The local radio station that carried the program. Both the local radio station and the network have an easy escape from liability, though -- they can broadcast a public apology. (There may be situations in which even that does not get them off the hook, though.) >> What do you think would happen to USENET if such a suit were filed, >> naming the owners and administrators of all the sites in the USENET map >> as defendants? > > Unknown. But I think the plaintiff of such a suit would have a hard > time gathering evidence of the malicious intent of hundreds of system > administrators who were probably asleep (unaware) when the offending > article was forwarded. It is my understanding (Mr. Berch, please straighten me out if I am wrong!) that "malicious intent" is only a consideration in the case of "public figures" (whatever that chances to mean on the day the court considers the case). In the case of a private citizen, the question becomes simply, "Are the statements true?" Whether or not Mr. Lippman would qualify as a "public figure" is an open question. Jeff, Kyle, and others (yes, you too, Chuq -- article <30227@sun.uucp>) are missing the most important point in all of this while picking at nits. USENET does not exist as a profit center which corporations are prepared to defend. Nor is the USENET a central educational activity that Universities are prepared to champion before State and Federal courts. If a broad lawsuit were filed against the USENET in general, or against a few prominent site owners and administrators, the results would be catastrophic! Faced with the potential (note that I did not say the *actuality* -- simply the *potential*) of unlimited liability for postings over which they have no control, those who own the machines will simply pull the plug on USENET. I expressed this concern in my previous posting (<4611@videovax.Tek.COM>). In his comments on my posting (in article <21761@lll-tis.arpa>), attorney Michael C. Berch (mcb@lll-tis.arpa) concurred with my concerns: > Precisely what I am worried about . . . It may seem to be harmless fun to disregard both reality and reasonableness when sitting down to write a blast at someone you don't know. However, in the real world, actions have consequences. All it would take is one person who decides he won't put up with being falsely accused, and the fat is in the fire. The writer would find that defending himself against such a suit (even if he were eventually held to be not liable) would be a very expensive and time-consuming experience. There would be consequences for the rest of us, too -- even though we are not directly involved in the verbal warfare. One potential consequence of use of the network as a tool for broadcasting defamatory statements is the utter destruction of USENET. Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!se-ID:t
vnend@engr.uky.edu (D. V. W. James) (10/08/87)
I would just like to update Chuq's reference. In a course on Media
Law this summer I did some research on the Usenet liability question. As
Chuq said, it is a legal nightmare. And as of July 1987 I could find only
one case of a BB operator (the closest equivalent to a USENET sysadmin)
being arrested for ANY action taken by his users (and that was credit card
fraud.) The charges were later dropped. There have been, as of that date
, according to my search through U Ky's law library, *no* cases of libel
stemming from BB useage. Studies on the problem simply agree that there is
a problem, but opinions differ widely as to just how liable admins should be
held. If anyone is interested in the cases and studies I found, just send
me a note, I still have the paper online somewhere...
--
Later y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure.
cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!vnend; vnend@engr.uky.edu; vnend%ukecc.uucp@ukma.BITNET
Also: cn0001dj@ukcc.BITNET, Compuserve 73277,1513 and VNEND on GEnie
I may be smart, but I can lift heavy things.jj@alice.UUCP (10/08/87)
In article <1014@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP writes: > Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof. Can > I demonstrate with certainty that <30049@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach? > No. But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from > him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!", > then it is extremely likely that he posted it. Um, err, not quite. It's very true that if some dweeb posts an article that says it comes from your machine, lots of news software will realize it's "already been there" and not send it there, ergo the person who's been forged (not the forger) will NEVER see the article, or know that it exists, except by means other than direct observation. This feature of news software does indeed bother me. -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE *GREEN* EYES! "...and a song in my heart, and it's ..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj HASA, A+S divisions.Copyright JJ 1987. All rights to mail reserved, USENET redistribution otherwise granted to those who allow free redistritution.
max@eros.uucp (Max Hauser) (10/09/87)
This concerns only a narrow facet of the liability issue. In article <4614@videovax.Tek.COM> stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes: [A great deal of stuff, including some uncommonly thoughtful points, answering a lot of low-cost armchair speculation, and then this sensible remark:] >... >It may seem to be harmless fun to disregard both reality and >reasonableness when sitting down to write a blast at someone you don't >know. However, in the real world, actions have consequences. All it >would take is one person who decides he won't put up with being falsely >accused, and the fat is in the fire. The writer would find that >defending himself against such a suit (even if he were eventually held >to be not liable) would be a very expensive and time-consuming >experience. Valuable though this point is in warning people from blasting away in anger, I am very much concerned about the flip side -- that the last sentence is not necessarily true, and that moreover this is unfortunate, because it could lead to to real personal injury over the net. Some would-be libelers, you see, perceive very little accountability, not just because they are irresponsible or feel untraceable, but also through lack of substantial assets, income or position at risk to civil action. Even if they ARE found liable, they may be incapable of restitution, and they know it. (Is it perhaps only my impression that these are the very same people who are themselves quick to sue people or institutions that do have assets, hoping to "cash in"?) It is tragic that some of the individuals most likely to cause personal injury are the least personally accountable in our society, a trite observation but relevant. Consider the uninsured-motorist problem as another example. (I will not comment about politicians and institutional officers, as this discussion concerns personal injury on a "retail" level.) This is part of my increasing concern about extending this net more and more to the general public, great though the rewards indisputably are -- on the up side. Max Hauser / max@eros.berkeley.edu / ...{!decvax}!ucbvax!eros!max
rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) (10/10/87)
In article <2294@umn-cs.UUCP> davidli@umn-cs.UUCP (Dave Meile) writes: >I am getting rather tired of all of this rather meaningless speculation. >If everyone is so scared of the possible outcomes, we should force a test >case to get it over with once and for all.... But not with us, please. 'dasys1' (The Big Electric Cat; the system from which the libelous article was allegedly posted) is owned and operated by two college students, myself, and the person who received the phone call from Mr. Lippman regarding the lawsuit. Our personal budgets are typical of the average college student. Any extra money we make is piped into the system, for the most part, and day-to-day system expenses are covered by the support fees the users of the Cat send in. We can't afford to handle any sort of legal action; we definately can't hire a lawyer. If we're sued (and the lawsuit alleges something which I can't just drive over to Clarence Town Court and debunk), we'll just shut down, thus depriving many net users of their access point (although not MES; he has access to several public machines around the country). I really don't see the point in all of this. Let the article expire, and be done with it. Mr. Lippman claims slander, however it seems that his outburst regarding the situation has prompted far more negative opinion among netreaders than anything contained in the original posting could possibly have. (assuming that it was libelous at all; I don't generally read soc.women, which is the group I assume the message was posted to). -- Robert Sweeney {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!rsweeney Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator "You crossed my line of death!"
mc68020@gilsys.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) (10/13/87)
In article <1014@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > > Civil litigation doesn't require such a rigid definition of proof. Can > I demonstrate with certainty that <30049@sun.uucp> came from Chuq Von Rospach? > No. But if, within the next couple of weeks, I don't see an article from > him claiming, "hey, somebody posted something with my name that I didn't say!", > then it is extremely likely that he posted it. Is it really? With in excess of 280 newsgroups on USENET at present, can you clearly conclude that the failure of a party to disclaim a forgery of which s/he may be completely unaware constitutes evidence of ANY kind? I should think not. > > If there were a forgery, you would have to show the court why you didn't point > it out until you were served with the suit. On the contrary, it is only necessary to introduce expert testamony to the effect that such forgeries are easy, and that the techniques for same are well known. It then rests upon the plaintiff to PROVE that the defendant indeed made the posting(s) in question, something you cannot do easily. > The court might believe you and > they might not, but it's up to them. The principle of reasonable doubt does > not apply in civil litigation. As usual, Mr. Templeton, you have it *ALMOST* right...what doesn't apply in civil litigation is REASON, of any sort. The number of outrageous, ridiculous and outright hilarious decisions that come out of the civil courts is sometimes beyond belief. -- Tom Keller VOICE : + 1 707 575 9493 UUCP : {ihnp4,ames,sun,amdahl,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!gilsys!mc68020
stevens@cascade.STANFORD.EDU (Greg Stevens) (10/13/87)
Allow me my two cents worth on this matter.
Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of
the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to
persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander? Perhaps the
system administrators of the backbone sites could fomulate such a
policy and generate the text of some release message that will be
displayed to first time posters ( similar to the startup message
of "rn" ) Couldn't the existance of such a policy put to rest any
future incidents such as this one? Comments?
--
Greg Stevens, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University
{ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!glacier!shasta!stevens, stevens@su-shasta.ARPAchuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/14/87)
>Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of >the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to >persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander? Well, first because it is very unlikely that a court would allow it to stand even if we did adopt it (they're not hot on enforcing explicit contracts. Why should they accept an implicit contract?) Second, USENET doesn't exist. The individual sites on USENET do, but there is no central authority that could create such a policy. Each site could adopt the policy, but since the primary threat for a lawsuit on such a thing would come from a user on a remote site (which probably doesn't have the policy on board)it doesn't really mean anything. Third, the policy isn't enforceable. How are you going to stop them from suing? Kick them off the machine? (big deal...) Fourth, do you REALLY want a USENET where someone who is truly libeled has no recourse? Think about that one. Much as I hate the thought of having USENET end up in court, I hate the thought of being unable to take that step more. May it never be needed, but... chuq Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ Bye bye life! Bye bye happiness! Hello, loneliness, I think I'm gonna die.
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (10/16/87)
In article <2294@umn-cs.UUCP>, Dave Meile (davidli@umn-cs.UUCP) suggested that we end all the speculation about what might happen if a libel case were filed against one or more USENET sites by ". . . forc[ing] a test case to get it over with once and for all...." This may be typical of the views of uninvolved bystanders: "Let's you and him fight!" Robert Sweeney (rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP) wasn't fond of Dave's suggestion! Mr. Sweeney, one of the owners of dasys1, responded in article <1606@dasys1.UUCP>: > But not with us, please. 'dasys1' ( . . . ) is owned and operated by > two college students, myself, and the person who received the phone call > from Mr. Lippman regarding the lawsuit. Our personal budgets are typical > of the average college student. . . . We can't afford to handle any > sort of legal action; we definately can't hire a lawyer. If we're > sued . . . we'll just shut down . . . This is precisely the attitude that > 99% of the system owners and administrators will take if suits begin to be filed. Most will take *preventive* steps, to avoid the possibility of being sued -- i.e., they will remove net access *before* problems start! In article <354@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>, Greg Stevens (stevens@cascade.STANFORD.EDU) proposed an alternative solution: > Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of > the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to > persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander? . . . A fundamental principle the courts hold is that you cannot voluntarily relinquish rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution or by law. For example, you are not legally bound if you sign an employment agreement which reads: Because Gigantic Monopoly, Inc. has been kind enough to give me a job, I hereby resign and irrevocably give up all right to file complaints against Gigantic Monopoly, Inc. with any agency of the State or Federal government (or government at any other level), including, but not limited to, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I also agree not to testify against Gigantic Monopoly, Inc. in any administrative proceeding or court case. Agreeing to give up your right to sue for slander or libel would be an equally invalid agreement. So the $64,000 question is, "Can we do anything at all?" I think we can. Kyle Jones <kyle@dew.cs.odu.edu> sent me a letter to which I responded by email. Kyle replied: > Your comments really make good sense. Post what you wrote to me to > news.admin. The private correspondence I have had with other > system/news administrators leads me to believe that it is not the > administrators that are siding with the flamers. Rather it is news > readers that want to get in on a good argument. Given Kyle's good judgement and persuasive arguments, how could I resist? [ 8^) ] To be serious for a moment, I think the suggestions contained in the letter will help: = I think there are some things that can be done to reduce the problem. = = One is for those of us who abhor unsubstantiated personal attacks to, = in general, side with the "injured" party, rather than reflexively = sticking up for the "right" of the flamers to say anything they want = without incurring any liability (in the mistaken notion that this is = what "freedom of speech" means). This would accomplish two goals: = = 1. Put the flamers on notice that they will not get the kind of = approval they have been seeking (and up until now, receiving). = = 2. Give the injured party the feeling that there are a lot of = people out there who care about him and who are supporting = him. This will lessen the tendency to for the injured party = to feel, "Some turkey defamed me and now these yoyos are = sitting around laughing about it. I'll show them! I'll sue!" = = Another is, in your words, "the guillottine." Each news administrator = (or system administrator) is going to have to be cognizant of the = problems his users are causing -- at least when it gets to the point that = complaints are filed. If complaints are filed, the administrator needs = to sit down with the person and discuss the postings in question. If = the postings are indeed defamatory (meaning there is no evidence to = back up the charges), then the administrator should warn the user and = yank his account and/or news access if malicious postings continue. = = Harsh? No. Just real world. As has been pointed out by others, the = user has little to lose (unless he is sued personally). The system = owner and the system administrator have a lot to lose, on the other = hand. Therefore, they need to be prepared to deal with problems = before the situation gets out of hand (being served with a summons = to appear in court is a clear sign that things are out of hand. . .). Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever
ken@matr-a.UUCP (Ken Farnen) (10/16/87)
In article <4611@videovax.Tek.COM>, stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes: > > Perhaps it is asking too much, but if we all behave ourselves in a > civilized manner, it will not become necessary to find out what the > courts might decide. . . > > Steve Rice > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com > old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever I hope you are right, Steve, I for one, do not want to see the Net die, and I have a nasty feeling your analysis (that if someone DOES test this in the courts, either side of the pond), the death of the UseNet will result. I can't comment on US law, I know little enough about the law of my own country, never mind anyone elses! But I was involved with the BBOA over here (the Bulletin Board Operators Ascociaton) and the legal advice we got was that the only laws that were liable to be applied in a situation of an electronic communication system being sued (or prosecuted) were those that related to 'paper' publishing. If this is indeed true, there is no doubt that the operator, or proprietor of the system that is 'publishing' the item is the guy in the frame. Over here, there is an Act of Parliament that covers the Postal service, giving them an explicit waiver of any responsibility for items passed through their medium ("Mute Carrier" I think is the term used), and interestingly enough, the first UK public Viewdata (read videotext) service managed to get themselves written into an amendment of this bill, extending the cover to THAT SINGLE SYSTEM EXPLICITLY. This was when we still had a single, national Post/Telecomunications body, rather than the new separate, privitised ones. Subsequent events seem to show that no-one is sure enough of the law to want to get in the way of it, e.g.... One of my favorite BBS systems was shut down in '85, it had a SIG for 'Hackers' which carried the usual passwords, 'phone numbers (no credit card numbers, you guys in the states were much more progressive than us there! :-) ), it was generally a good board, with a Multi-User games section, agony aunt, i.e. not DEVOTED to hacking! The sysop wasn't a hacker, or a 'kid', and he provided a hackers SIG because that was what people wanted. There was no legal problems here, he was just banned from all Telephone service. This was a well worked out punishment, as he was a freelance contractor (read: lived via the phone!). There was a big storm over a few 'joke' messages on TELECOM-GOLD (a commercial E-Mail system), result? They withdrew ALL non-E-mail message facilities, no more bulletin board! Very recently, a BBS had the bad luck to be featured as an 'expose'' of "The underground electronic communication network for perverts, paedophiliacs, homosexuals and prostitutes" (you know, what computer comms. is REALLY all about :-} ). The publicity did him the WORLD of good, and his original views on free speech have changed! He isn't interested in running a BBS any more. The point(s) I'm trying to make are: There is always a body of people, a vocal minority, looking for a cause in their fight for justice and morality. This is a warning more to BBS operators, and public access UseNet sites (but hey, since we don't get soc.singles over here, I don't know what the Commercial/Academic lot are up to, do I? :-) ). * If one of these crusaders takes exception to something, I'm willing to bet they will aim their substantial funds and power at the system, and the operators, NOT at the originators of messages. As for CIVIL liability, all that the traffic of the last few weeks prove is that the only way we will find out who is liable is the HARD way (someone gets sued). I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO FIND OUT THAT BADLY! Let's just keep our hair on, and learn to ignore 'stupid' comments from others, I doubt that any other course will help to improve ANYONE's network credibility. To people who offer commercial services, and/or public UseNet access, all I can do is give you the findings of the study we did at the BBOA. * It's very uncertain that any disclaimer will protect you, it'll be up to some bored judge to decide whether it's enforcable. * Take out legal liability insurance, or, if you prefer, cross your fingers before you go to bed at night. * If you want your user's to be responsible, your best bet is to try to include an indemnity in your user's contract, along the lines of "The user agrees to indemnify <your-name-here> against any and all actions against <your-name-here> in respect of material posted onto the system by you." It may not help that much, but at least you get the satisfaction of sueing the guy who caused it all :-) I think the only solution for the net is for us all to develop thicker skins, I want to keep my newsfeed (I only just got it!), and I know how quiet it would be without all the US messages! As a final note, if anyone rang my employer to complain about my actions on the 'net', I would smile. If they tried to get me fired, I may even snigger, and wonder what sort of reference I would get when I sacked me (double :-) ). Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, or even expert, all this is from memory of some reasearch we did a fair time ago, don't take it as the gospel, it's not straight out of K&R. - - - - - - - - - - Matrix Software Development | Ken Farnen. UUCP:..!mcvax!ukc!matr-a!ken * Unix Software Solutions * |flames and complaints to| VOX: +44 51 737 1915 *Apple Certified Mac Developers*|my boss, ken@matr-a :-) | BBS: +44 51 737 1882
steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) (10/17/87)
In article <354@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>, stevens@cascade.STANFORD.EDU (Greg Stevens) writes: > Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of > the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to > persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander? Perhaps the > system administrators of the backbone sites could fomulate such a > policy and generate the text of some release message that will be > displayed to first time posters ( similar to the startup message > of "rn" ) Couldn't the existance of such a policy put to rest any > future incidents such as this one? Comments? A noble idea, and I would like to live under a legal system in which it would work. But I don't think it would work under present U.S law. Individual responsibility is not in style in this country, and people generaly target their suits for maximum probable return rather than with a sense of justice. Also, I think that this would be found to be quite weak protection legally, much as the shrink-wrap licenses and most warranty disclaimers are pretty much worthless. I think the warranty disclaimer theory is directly relevant - when you market something you have certain legal responsibilities to the customers that you cannot weasle out of by printing a disclaimer; the disclaimer is not illegal per say, it simply carries no legal force where it is contradicted by some law. (such disclaimers may be partially effective, for instance in limiting consequential damage claims and such.) Similarly, I suspect that if it were found that the site or the usenet itself had "published" a libelous article, such a diclaimer would have no protective effect. -- Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be (713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947
kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (10/19/87)
It has been many days, probably several weeks, that I have been meaning to speak up in support of Larry Lippman in this (most unfortunate) unpleasantness that he finds himself in, simply to let him (and others) know that there are people on the net who think well of him and who will support him when attacked unfairly. I have been on the net for nearly 10 years, and Larry has been an outstanding participant and contributor for many of those years and I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to him for that. From Mark Smith, on the other hand, I have yet to see an article that would lead me to say anything similar. Many have been distasteful and offensive (to me), demonstrating (to me) that it is not worth my time to read further what this person has to say. Consequently, I cannot say that I am fully informed (who can, really) on the details regarding the problem Larry seems to have with Mark (or anyone else) - but what I have seen leads me to believe that I would invite Larry to have an account on my machine any day, whereas I feel embarrassed having to share even the same network with Mark (and I am willing to chip in a few bucks to the defense fund of anyone that needs to go to court over cancelling one of Mark's USENET account). In the past, I have made a habit of sending supportive Email to people who I felt needed and deserved support in order to be able to ignore some of the more outrageous statements by others, as a public argument with an obviously unreasonable person does not benefit anyone, really. We can, at least, create the illusion that certain folks have noone paying the least attention to their articles, and, without any audience reaction, I am sure even the most obnoxious person will, eventually, get tired of posting articles or mailing Email-messages which seem to get ignored completely. In this spirit, please ignore this article ...((-:, ---Werner (I deny having authored this article, as I am, obviously, way too busy to have found time to write it; ask anyone around here ...) -- INTERNET: kraut@emx.cc.utexas.edu UUCP: kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (or ...!ut-sally!ut-emx!kraut)
maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) (10/20/87)
In article <168@ut-emx.UUCP> kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >It has been many days, probably several weeks, that I have been >meaning to speak up in support of Larry Lippman in this (most >unfortunate) unpleasantness that he finds himself in, simply to let >him (and others) know that there are people on the net who think well >of him and who will support him when attacked unfairly. > > From Mark Smith, on the other hand, I have yet to see an >article that would lead me to say anything similar. Many have been >distasteful and offensive (to me), demonstrating (to me) that it is not >worth my time to read further what this person has to say. > >Consequently, I cannot say that I am fully informed (who can, really) >on the details regarding the problem Larry seems to have with Mark (or >anyone else) Well, everyone but me seems to have had their say on this subject including those like our poster above who admit they don't know what they're talking about...so now I'll have my say, to the powers that be, so I beg your indulgence. But pray, Mr. Uhrig, how do you so pontificate when you admit to being uninformed? Not so long ago, I was the voice that proposed a soc.men group, solicited and gathered votes for it, hoping that it would once again make soc.women a place where reasonable discussion could take place. Larry Lippman and his ilk (yes, his ilk, because the postings on soc.women are recently more than 2-1 from men, not women) have made that impossible. You say, Mr. Uhrig, that Mr. Lippman finds himself in some unpleasnatness? Au contraire, he instigated it. Here's the truth. Larry inserted himself into a discussion of names and gender in soc.women that was being carried out on a level that was generally tolerable and interesting. He disregarded the "rules of etiquette" in the group and generally made a nuisance of himself. When the rebuttals to his messages began to indicate the level of anger and frustration that he was arousing in Mark and other soc.women participants, he went crying home to get his "big brother the attorney" to take up his fight for him. Anyone who took the trouble to look into soc.women below the surface of the last week would know that Larry's tactics have not been appreciated by most of the regular posters there, men and women alike. However, his nastiness has managed to be a coalescing force that drove a core group of many of the soc.women regulars to a woman-only mailing list; kill files and the "n" key weren't enough anymore. I was one of those; I can't stand to read the group that I worked very hard to protect. Basically what Mr. Lippman has been doing is akin to walking into a black neigborhood and yelling "Look at all the niggers" and then wondering why he was clouted from behind with a baseball bat in a dark alley. Mr. Lippmann, and Mr. Uhrig, may have enough tunnel vision that they don't realize that their attitude and behavior has been at least as objectionable to some of us, to whom soc.women was an important resource, as Mark's has been to them. I don't care how wonderful Lippman has been in any other newsgroup, Mr. Uhrig. In soc.women he was a boor and a bully. I wouldn't trade one Mark Ethan Smith for 20 of him. Mark is a skillful debater, and pulls no punches. His articles are often painful to read. But the pain is from seeing the truth, naked, held up like a mirror. So, net gods, lest you think that this is a tempest in a teapot, it's not. But the issue is not whether Lippmann was libeled but rather whether being an unconventional woman is net.death. Valerie Maslak
minerva@bucket.UUCP (Minerva) (10/20/87)
Egads, I thought this had died down. Since it has not, I feel compelled to have my say (everyone else has :-) and in particular, reply to this Werner person. In article <168@ut-emx.UUCP> kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >It has been many days, probably several weeks, that I have been >meaning to speak up in support of Larry Lippman in this (most >unfortunate) unpleasantness that he finds himself in, simply to let >him (and others) know that there are people on the net who think well >of him and who will support him when attacked unfairly. And where were (are) you when Larry attacks others unfairly? Do you give them your support? Or do just support Larry unconditionally? >I have been on the net for nearly 10 years, and Larry has been an >outstanding participant and contributor for many of those years and I >want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to him for >that. From Mark Smith, on the other hand, I have yet to see an >article that would lead me to say anything similar. Many have been >distasteful and offensive (to me), demonstrating (to me) that it is not >worth my time to read further what this person has to say. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Here is mine. Larry Lippman has shown himself to be anything *but* an outstanding participant and contributor in soc.women. He has attacked other people quite unfairly, *his* disclaimer being that the person he attacked had said all of these things themselves, and that he was just summarizing for the benefit of the rest of us. Did he, for proof, include the articles to which he was referring? Nope. He told us to go look them up ourselves. And if our sites expire quickly? Too bad. He has since continued to be nothing but a nuisance where his views and opinions are unwelcomed in a group where the focus is women's issues. He has demonstrated to me and others, that it is not worth our time to read further what he has to say. Mark Smith, on the other hand, has made what I feel are valuable contributions to soc.women. You may not like them. Fine. That's no reason to show support for someone who advocates having Mark's account pulled. No matter how obnoxious Larry has been in soc.women (and he's been *real* obnoxious), no one has asked that *his* account be pulled. >Consequently, I cannot say that I am fully informed (who can, really) >on the details regarding the problem Larry seems to have with Mark (or >anyone else) - I *can* say that I'm fairly informed - until recently, Larry Lippman was not in my KILL files. I am a regular reader of soc.women and other newgroups. >but what I have seen leads me to believe that I would >invite Larry to have an account on my machine any day, whereas I feel >embarrassed having to share even the same network with Mark (and I am >willing to chip in a few bucks to the defense fund of anyone that >needs to go to court over cancelling one of Mark's USENET account). Well, to each his own, I suppose. What I have seen is more than you (by your own admission). I strongly suggest that you take a look at all of Larry's articles before you make such an opinion. >In the past, I have made a habit of sending supportive Email to people >who I felt needed and deserved support in order to be able to ignore >some of the more outrageous statements by others, as a public argument >with an obviously unreasonable person does not benefit anyone, really. Ah, you're talking about Larry and his unreasonableness, I take it? No? Could have fooled me. >We can, at least, create the illusion that certain folks have noone >paying the least attention to their articles, and, without any >audience reaction, I am sure even the most obnoxious person will, >eventually, get tired of posting articles or mailing Email-messages >which seem to get ignored completely. This is exactly what I have suggested that my fellow readers of soc.women do in the case of Larry Lippman. I suggest that you take a moment to read that group, Larry's articles in particular, and then let me know if you still have such a high (and inflated) opinion of him. However, this is not good enough for dear Mr. Lippman. He wants to control (personally, it seems) who has access to USENET and who does not. I'd be very, very, careful, Werner. You may say something that your idol here doesn't approve of, and you could be booted off next. >In this spirit, please ignore this article ...((-:, Not bloody likely. Larry didn't bother to ignore Mark's, now did he? :-) > ---Werner (I deny having authored this article, as I am, obviously, > way too busy to have found time to write it; > ask anyone around here ...) Minerva (You'll never get me to deny the authorship of this article. I'm too proud of it; ask anyone around here...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( /\ ) | ( \__||__/ ) | Man: Man is the hunter. Woman is the civilizing ( __ __ ) | influence, and when women abandon that role ( / || \ ) | men become... ( || ) | || | Woman: cranky and start wars. || | || | -Nicole Hollander ## | || | ...tektronix!teksce!bucket!minerva -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch) (10/21/87)
In article <4626@videovax.Tek.COM> stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) writes: > In article <354@cascade.STANFORD.EDU>, Greg Stevens > (stevens@cascade.STANFORD.EDU) proposed an alternative solution: > > > Why can't Usenet adopt a policy that anyone who avails themselves of > > the services of this network implicitly relinquishes the right to > > persue any legal activity concerning libel or slander? . . . > > A fundamental principle the courts hold is that you cannot voluntarily > relinquish rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution or by law. > For example, you are not legally bound if you sign an employment > agreement which reads: [one-sided waiver of claims present and > future against an employer] [...] > > Agreeing to give up your right to sue for slander or libel would be > an equally invalid agreement. The specific waiver in Mr. Rice's article is undoubtedly invalid as against public policy, but it is a utterly gross misstatement of the law to assert that "you cannot voluntarily relinquish rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution or by law". People do it all the time -- ranging from giving up the right to sue on a contract via an arbitration clause; agreeing not to pursue various claims, defenses, or methods of calculating damages via a liquidated damages clause; agreeing to curtail your right of freedom of expression in connection with proprietary or classified information; etc., etc. I don't know if a general waiver of the right to sue for defamation would stand up. Perhaps not. But most probably such a waiver included in a specific contract or transaction (say, in an agreement to have a biography or documentatory about your life produced) WOULD be enforceable. How this relates to Usenet is uncertain. I am unaware of the case law in this specific area: can anyone cite a leading case? Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis.arpa UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch) (10/21/87)
In article <8499@sri-unix.ARPA> maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes: > [Re Lippman/Smith debacle...] > > So, net gods, lest you think that this is a tempest in a teapot, > it's not. But the issue is not whether Lippmann was libeled but > rather whether being an unconventional woman is net.death. > > Valerie Maslak Actually, it IS a tempest in a teapot, and some of us are trying our level best to KEEP it in a teapot, and out of lawyers' offices, departmental/managerial conferences, and the courts. The merits of the case ("being an unconventional woman"; "the value of pornography"; "X libeled me"; "My rights are being denied") are irrelevant. Personally, I think both Larry Lippman and Mark Ethan Smith are WAY out of line, and I have no interest in defending the viewpoints of either. I can sympathize with both of them -- Lippman for being unwarrantedly flamed by Smith (hey; it's happened to me too, for some sort of twaddle about "diminutive pronouns" that was totally unrelated to the matter at hand); Smith for having to worry about people trying to take her account(s) away -- certainly a legitimate concern. But this isn't the issue. Clearly our network can survive any amount of internal dissention, flamage, and controversy. This has been proven repeatedly over the years. But its vulnerability to EXTERNAL pressure is unknown, and I don't want to see a situation where the ability of people to participate in Usenet might be curtailed because various persons couldn't resolve their personal problems without trying to bring down the whole show. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis.arpa UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/22/87)
I believe that I have demonstrated some possible hazards, and put the "Smith" matter in perspective in a recent article that I posted to this newsgroup and misc.legal. Again, I hope to extricate myself from discussions at this point. However, there is one bit of unfinished business, necessitated by Ms. Maslak's recent article (she apparently could not leave well enough alone), which I present below: In article <8499@sri-unix.ARPA>, maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) writes: > Not so long ago, I was the voice that proposed a soc.men group, > solicited and gathered votes for it, hoping that it would once again > make soc.women a place where reasonable discussion could take place. The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect Ms. Maslak's definition of "reasonable discussion". > He disregarded the "rules of etiquette" > in the group and generally made a nuisance of himself. The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect Ms. Maslak's definition of "rules of etiquette". > Anyone who took the trouble to look into soc.women below the surface > of the last week would know that Larry's tactics have not been > appreciated by most of the regular posters there, men and women > alike. The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect Ms. Maslak's definition of "acceptable tactics". > Mr. Lippmann, and Mr. Uhrig, may have enough tunnel vision that they > don't realize that their attitude and behavior has been at least as > objectionable to some of us, to whom soc.women was an important > resource, as Mark's has been to them. The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect Ms. Maslak's definition of "non-objectionable attitude and behavior". > Mark is a skillful debater, and > pulls no punches. His articles are often painful to read. But the > pain is from seeing the truth, naked, held up like a mirror. And best of all, the quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect Ms. Maslak's definition of "skillful debating" and "truth". I now present to you the person so WORSHIPPED by Ms. Maslak, Ms. Minerva and others, the one and only alleged "Mark Ethan Smith": In article <5420@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: $$> The reason scientists were more than 99% male for thousands of years, $$> is because they did science with the thing between their legs, having $$> little or nothing between their ears. In article <1827@killer.UUCP>, era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes: $$> Or just to gratify the egos of a bunch of brainless pricks? $$> For thousands of years, it was necessary to have a penis in order $$> to do science. Do you believe it is necessary to have a penis to $$> do science? Do you think people who believed that were really $$> scientists? In article <1691@dasys1.UUCP>, msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes: $$> As for the obssessed $$> murderer, I have some of his letters detailing his obsession $$> explicitly. Had I not been homeless, I believe I could have stayed $$> in this country without too many problems with him, but to be homeless $$> and have a murderer obsessed with you is much too vulnerable a position $$> for anyone to have to endure. Most of the people who attacked me $$> on the Well, m-net, and chinet, were indeed Libertarians. Some were $$> anti-Semitic, some were only anti-anybody-in-touch-with-reality. In article <1704@dasys1.UUCP>, msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) writes: $$> As to the theory that things have changed, I wrote almost a hundred $$> lines responding to you, and got nuked off and the article was $$> lost. I will try to recreate it, but my tone will not be as calm $$> and happy as it was before the fascist pig nuked me offline. I have $$> asked the SA to check the activity files. And no, it was not a problem $$> at my end or with line noise. $$> ... $$> But this *is* a fascist country, and I $$> rarely manage to get through an article without being nuked off $$> two or three times, no matter what system I'm on, since I use $$> public access systems and the fascists have access to them also. $$> ... $$> Oh yes, I'm sure that the fascists who make every attempt to interfere $$> with my postings, will now say that I'm paranoid again I apologize for having to subject the readers of these newgroups to the vile ravings contained in these quotations. But, perhaps NOW you will understand the issue: do the above articles represent a reasonable use of the Net, is it ABuse of the Net? For any system administrators of sites which continue to allow "Smith" to post, are you PROUD to have this person speak in behalf of your organization? Are you SO PROUD that you will even endure the continual accusa
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (10/22/87)
In article <8499@sri-unix.ARPA> maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes:
<Here's the truth. Larry inserted himself into a discussion of names
<and gender in soc.women that was being carried out on a level that was
<generally tolerable and interesting. He disregarded the "rules of etiquette"
<in the group and generally made a nuisance of himself. When the rebuttals
<to his messages began to indicate the level of anger and frustration that
<he was arousing in Mark and other soc.women participants, he went crying home
<to get his "big brother the attorney" to take up his fight for him.
<Anyone who took the trouble to look into soc.women below the surface
<of the last week would know that Larry's tactics have not been
<appreciated by most of the regular posters there, men and women
<alike. However, his nastiness has managed to be a coalescing force
<that drove a core group of many of the soc.women regulars to a
<woman-only mailing list; kill files and the "n" key weren't enough
<anymore. I was one of those; I can't stand to read the group that I
<worked very hard to protect.
I don't read soc.women, in fact I don't read _any_ of the soc groups. So
all I've seen of this war have been postings in news.admin, news.sys.admin,
news.misc, and misc.legal.
From what has appeared in the _those_ groups, this war started due to Mark
accusing the sys admin at violet.berkeley.edu of _deliberately_ interfering
with Mark's ability to read and post from an account there. No "it looks
like" or "possibly".
Larry and others pointed out that the maintenance of the news software on
that system was a rather low priority of a sysadmin who had a lot of other
higher priority things that _had_ to be done.
From Mark's own postings it appears that Mark just _assumed_ that the problem
was a deliberate attack. I do not recall if Mark had attempted to contact
the sysadmin before posting the flame. I _do_ recall that Mark claimed that
the sysadmin was someone other than the real sysadmin (as I recall, the
person Mark accused turned out to be the sysadmin of berkely.edu, which is
a different system)
Larry also pointed out that Mark's comments were slanderous. I'm not a
lawyer, so I don't know if they really are or not, but the wording and
tone do _not_ belong in any of the news.* groups!
From the evidence _I_ have seen, it would appear that Mark is prone to
jumping to conclusions. And that Mark likes to flame. Neither of which
belong in a posting to news.admin or the other _news_ groups involved.
Apparently Mark has been on the receiving end of a lot of discrimination.
This does not give Mark the right to assume _in a public message_ that a
problem is due to further discrimination. Making such assumptions shows
prejudice on _Mark's_ part.
Mark is free to believe anything the he wishes to about men and their
motives. Even specific men. Similarly, they can believe anything they
wish to about Mark. Neither side may act as if these prejudices are true
_without evidence_. Doing so is discrimination. Which I thought Mark
was against?
(to use races as you did in your example: I'm perfectly free to believe
that all blacks are criminals. I am _not_ free to act as if this were true.
Most especially, I am not free to assume that a _specific_ black is a
criminal, UNLESS I HAVE HARD EVIDENCE.)
Remember? "Innocent until proven guilty."
What Mark could have done (and _should_ have!) was post a message describing
the problem and stating that he couldn't contact the sysadmin. _Without_ the
conspiracy theory! The comments to the effect of "I'm mad, I paid good money
for this account and it isn't working" could even have been left in. After
all, they are the truth!
(note that I am restricting this to misc.legal. This stuff never belonged
in news.admin in the first place.)
ps. before anyone tries to flame me for the opinion mentioned above with
regards to blacks, not that it was an example NOT MY BELIEFS!
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (10/22/87)
[ I refer to MES as "he" because that is his preference ] In article <2140@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: [ nothing in the article is really worth quoting -- read it if you like ] Larry accuses Mark of "vile ravings" unsuitable for the net. Larry, the purpose of soc.women is to discuss problems women face. Among the problems are poverty, rape, violence, and harrassment. Mark has experienced them all first-hand and talks about them, in strong language, in the appropriate forum. You complain about certain specific passages in Mark's postings. For example, 99% of scientists have been male for most of the time there have been scientists. Mark addresses this question in a blunt way (your quote): >$$> For thousands of years, it was necessary to have a penis in order >$$> to do science. Do you believe it is necessary to have a penis to >$$> do science? Do you think people who believed that were really >$$> scientists? I don't understand your objection. Do you object to the use of the word "penis"? Seems appropriate in this context. Some of your other objections are to Mark's descriptions of his own life. Yes, Mark has been raped (and was made pregnant by the rape), was homeless, was threatened with violence many times in life, and has had so many horrible experience that a weaker person would find it difficult to go on living. It has obviously never entered your head that things this bad happen to real people. Enough of Mark's story has been verified by either me personally or by people I trust for me to know it's true. I have no interest in giving you additional info on MES, since you'll only use it for purpose of harrassment. Mark has been booted off three different systems (well, m-net, and chinet), and is now being subjected to a campaign by you to get the net to throw him off again. Mark is an imporant voice in soc.women that needs to be heard, and I admire his courage and commitment to being heard. Kindly cease and desist your campaign of harrassment. I'm sorry Mark called you some bad names, but you have not been damaged by them. I often disagree, sometimes strongly, with MES. But I'll be damned if I sit back and allow you to run dissenting views off the net! -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net
maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (10/22/87)
Yes, well, now you've also had a chance to see the kind of behavior that so enraged most of the readers of soc.women. Mr. Lippman consistently -Quoted material out of context with the deliberate intent of distorting its meaning. -Refused to recognize any sort of satire, metaphor, or allusion. -Insisted on nitpicking and wasting our time in circular debates. -Tried to destroy other's arguments by ignoring their assumptions. -Imputed to others ideas and positions that they had never taken. Mr. Lippman seems to think he is the injured party in all this. He is not. The injured parties are the women of the net who have to find ways to deal with Lippman and the others of his ilk who have nothing better to do than barge in to soc.women like ignorant bulls in intellectual china shops, ignore the forest for the trees, and then cry foul when they get back what they dish out. With all the metaphors in that last sentence, I'm sure it will go right over Lippman's head... and my apologies for the net.bandwidth, but I wax poetic when aroused. Valerie Maslak
minerva@bucket.UUCP (Minerva) (10/23/87)
In article <2140@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: [ bunch of Larry's stuff deleted ] [then a bunch of stuff out of context by Mark to give a one-sided view ] First of all, I do NOT worship Mark, I just prefer his postings in soc.women to yours. Second of all, I was objecting to Werner's misdirected attempt of supporting you in all of your causes - like selectively having people thrown off the net. > I apologize for having to subject the readers of these newgroups >to the vile ravings contained in these quotations. And what about the vile stuff YOU have posted to soc.women. Aren't you just as guilty with the attacks you made on Eileen McGowan? Or are there one set of rules for Mark Smith and another for you? And what about accusing Mark of fraud and deception?? From your first posting on this subject in news.admin: ======================= beginning of article excerpt =========================== From: larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Mark Ethan Smith: For real? Summary: "Smith" should be identified and its computer accounts revoked Date: 30 Sep 87 01:27:57 GMT No Usenet site should have anonymous users. Usenet is not (or SHOULD not) be conducted as a juvenile BBS. Usenet feeds are propagated in part by institutions using public funds. Public funds should not be used to propagate the whimsical, irresponsible ravings of a person who ^^^^^^^^^^^^ uses fraud and deception in concealing their identity. If "Smith" wishes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to engage in such anonymous activity, let him/her/it confine postings ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to privately owned BBS's - not Usenet. [ rest of the article deleted ] <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York ================================================================================ So, now that you KNOW that Mark Smith really exists and that that the legal name of that person, how about a more appropriate apology? Adding this to your most recent disregard of a person's privacy by posting the home address of Mark, you just keep providing proof that you're one of the biggest hypocrites of the net. >But, perhaps NOW you >will understand the issue: do the above articles represent a reasonable >use of the Net, is it ABuse of the Net? Then your use also represents abuse. Oh, what? No? Oh, that's right, you're *Larry Lippman*, respected member and contributor to the Net. BLECH. > For any system administrators of sites which continue to allow >"Smith" to post, are you PROUD to have this person speak in behalf of >your organization? Are you SO PROUD that you will even endure the >continual accusa Well, the rest of the article didn't reach this site - it's just as well. However, let me address the following: 1. Pride has nothing to do with it. And despite your best arguments, a site's responsiblity for it's posters is not as clear cut as you have tried to make it. 2. Mark Smith has never spoken on behalf of these various sites. He has stated again and again that he speaks only for himself, not for the site he posts from. Well. I feel much better having said that. Go ahead and flame me, I don't care. Actually, I'll be quite surprised if he acknowledges this at all. Minerva ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( /\ ) | ( \__||__/ ) | Man: Man is the hunter. Woman is the civilizing ( __ __ ) | influence, and when women abandon that role ( / || \ ) | men become... ( || ) | || | Woman: cranky and start wars. || | || | -Nicole Hollander ## | || | ...tektronix!teksce!bucket!minerva -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ambar@athena.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz) (10/23/87)
In article <843@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >From what has appeared in the _those_ groups, this war started due to Mark >accusing the sys admin at violet.berkeley.edu of _deliberately_ interfering >with Mark's ability to read and post from an account there. No "it looks >like" or "possibly". 1) Your recounting of events is partially incorrect. 2) That's not where this war started. This bit of silliness started because Larry believes that Mark slandered him. (And I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole.) >From Mark's own postings it appears that Mark just _assumed_ that the problem >was a deliberate attack. I do not recall if Mark had attempted to contact >the sysadmin before posting the flame. I _do_ recall that Mark claimed that >the sysadmin was someone other than the real sysadmin (as I recall, the >person Mark accused turned out to be the sysadmin of berkely.edu, which is >a different system) Mark (and others who read news off of violet.berkeley.edu) have tried many times to have the news system on that machine fixed. The problem is that it is "unsupported", ie, it will be fixed when someone gets the proverbial "roundtoit". Mark made a public accusation, and later made a public apology, something I have not yet seen from any of the people who are trying to get him thrown off the net with every bit of means and influence they can muster. >[...] the wording and >tone [of Mark's comments] do _not_ belong in any of the news.* groups! Mark has not, to my knowlege, ever originated a discussion in any of the news.* groups. If you wish to complain about the invasion of your tidy little technical groups, complain about the people who feel it necessary to try to get Mark's accounts pulled by complaining (in public, yet, instead of by email) to system administrators in news.admin. I often disagree with Mark, but I see no reason to let you feel complacent with your half-truths. AMBAR ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu {backbones}!mit-eddie!ambar
daveb@geac.UUCP (10/23/87)
In article <8499@sri-unix.ARPA> maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes: >of the last week would know that Larry's tactics have not been >appreciated by most of the regular posters there, men and women >alike. I am one of the persons who has not appreciated Miss Lippman's reducing the signal/noise ratio. >Basically what Mr. Lippman has been doing is akin to walking into a black >neigborhood and yelling "Look at all the niggers" and then wondering >why he was clouted from behind with a baseball bat in a dark alley. And this nigger is getting SERIOUSLY annoyed. --dave -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) (10/24/87)
In article <1592@epimass.EPI.COM>, jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: [referring to Mark Ethan Smith, of many loginids and sites] > Mark has been booted off three different systems (well, m-net, and > chinet), and is now being subjected to a campaign by you to get the > net to throw him off again. The above-quoted sentence is false and libelous to Mike Myers, M-Net's owner and sysop. I can say for certain that it was made with a reckless disregard for the truth, since a cursory investigation would reveal that: 1.) Mark Smith *never* had an account purged from M-Net for any reason whatsoever, 2.) Mark left M-Net on his own volition (and ran a conference called "human viability" until his departure), and 3.) Even after his un-coerced departure from M-Net, Mark returned on occasion to use the loginid 'reason' to exchange mail with Mike Myers, the sysop. I have seen the loginid in use. Marks views met with no more popularity on M-Net than with Larry Lippman; however, Mark was not "booted off of" M-Net any more than Larry could boot Mark off of Usenet. All of the above information could be gathered with a brief quiz, via e-mail, of a sample of users. M-Net is a public access system [ (313) 994-6333 ], so there is no excuse for pushing misinformation over Usenet when you could check for yourself. > - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck > Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net -- The above are the official opinions and figures of Robust Software, Inc. If someone offers you drugs, just say "Thanks, man!" Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ihnp4!itivax![m-net!rsi,crlt!russ]
larry@kitty.UUCP (10/24/87)
In article <563@bucket.UUCP>, minerva@bucket.UUCP (Minerva) writes: > And what about the vile stuff YOU have posted to soc.women. Aren't you just as > guilty with the attacks you made on Eileen McGowan? Would you like me to post (to soc.women only, of course), the complete text of all of the articles by Ms. McGowan which I used as a reference? I think you KNOW by now that I carefully archive and reference articles before I make a statement. > Or are there one set > of rules for Mark Smith and another for you? One set of rules for all; nothing inconsistent with what I have said. > And what about accusing Mark of fraud and deception?? With the result of the "court case" investigation, there is even more probable cause to use the words "fraud and deception". > So, now that you KNOW that Mark Smith really exists and that that the legal > name of that person, how about a more appropriate apology? I don't know that "Mark Ethan Smith" is it's LEGAL name; it could very well be an assumed name or alias adopted without court order. Using an assumed name or alias without a court-sanctioned change of name may facilitate a fraud or deception, but it is not, per se, unlawful; as an example, many criminals use an assumed name or alias at the time of their arrest - this in itself is not unlawful. Using an assumed name or alias (without a court-sanctioned change) need not disqualify one as plaintiff in a lawsuit (I can provide references to this point, if you so desire). If you could give me details to verify "Smith's" alleged previous name and the court in which a statutory name change to "Smith" occurred, perhaps I could make a more conciliatory comment. At the moment, no apology is in order. > Adding this to your most recent disregard of a person's privacy by posting > the home address of Mark, you just keep providing proof that you're one of > the biggest hypocrites of the net. I posted COMPLETE information from a PUBLIC record. I fail to see your charge of hypocrisy. You wouldn't want to accuse me of intentionally omitting something, would you? > > For any system administrators of sites which continue to allow > >"Smith" to post, are you PROUD to have this person speak in behalf of > >your organization? Are you SO PROUD that you will even endure the > >continual accusa > > Well, the rest of the article didn't reach this site. continual accusations of your own user that persons with root privileges on your own system interfere with this person's use of your own system? > Actually, I'll be quite surprised if he acknowledges this at all. Wrong. BTW, as long as you have invoked my name and compelled me to be here with the above remark, I would like to do some good and point out your 12-line .signature is in poor taste since it exceeds the Net guidelines by a factor of 3. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (10/24/87)
In article <1592@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >Mark has been booted off three different systems (well, m-net, and >chinet), and is now being subjected to a campaign by you to get the The third system I was booted off was not m-net. And I wasn't booted off it, just denied permission to post to soc.women from that system. I stopped accessing m-net due to the large number of attacks on me there, but last time I checked I still had access and if I were willing to submit to attacks and to try to defend myself against more than 20 attacks a day, Mike Myers would be happy to stand back and watch. He refused many demands to pull my password, while personally disagreeing with much that I said, and I know Mike and m-net to be free of censorship. As for that 3rd system, the SA felt that the heat directed against me would be directed against him if he continued to let me post, and I understand his position, empathize, and only wish that people who disagree with me would stop blaming the SA's and threatening legal action against sites. --Mark -- Mark Ethan Smith {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!msmith New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/
msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (10/24/87)
In article <21790@lll-tis.arpa> mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch) writes: >flamed by Smith (hey; it's happened to me too, for some sort of twaddle >about "diminutive pronouns" that was totally unrelated to the matter at >hand); Smith for having to worry about people trying to take her >account(s) away -- certainly a legitimate concern. But this isn't the issue. If, while denying my right to free speech, people deny my right to equal terms, my right to equal terms becomes as much an issue as my right to free speech. While Michael may think that certain rights, or the rights of certain people, such as, perhaps the rights of women to equal terms, or the rights of minorities to equal access to public places, are trivial or "twaddle," those subjected to disparate treatment may legitimately differ with her views. Indeed, if she thinks that my referring to her *exactly* as she referred to me was a "flame," then it is obviously not a trivial matter. Indeed, the hidden reason my accounts were pulled, may well have been the insistence of certain people that they were entitled to accord others disparate treatment based upon sex. More specifically, they believe that certain terms are the sole privilege of biological males, just as they once believed that certain jobs and fields of study were the sole privilege of biological males. I've taken the trouble of posting to soc.women an article on the subject of equal terms (the subject line reads, "Offensively David Canzi (Was...Edward C. Kwok)" that only an original intentionalist who rejects the Bill of Rights could fail to understand as being a legitimate concern and not mere "twaddle." If you refer to someone in terms they consider discriminatory, and they defend their right to equal terms, and others also defend their right, and you then go into an administrative office or boardroom so that you can continue to refer to them in a discriminatory manner, and that administrative office or boardroom is a public place, don't be too surprized if they defend their rights wherever you see fit to attack them. Nobody will know what discriminatory things you say in a private club or a locked office, instead of a public forum. --Mark -- Mark Ethan Smith {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!msmith New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/
daveb@geac.UUCP (10/26/87)
In article <2140@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > However, there is one bit of unfinished business, necessitated by >Ms. Maslak's recent article (she apparently could not leave well enough >alone), which I present below: > The quotations at the end of this article apparently reflect >Ms. Maslak's definition of "reasonable discussion". > >In article <5420@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >> The reason scientists were more than 99% male for thousands of years, >> is because they did science with the thing between their legs, having >> little or nothing between their ears. Mr Lippman suggest that, since various female commentators have voiced unkind opinions about verifiable historical facts (qv), he has the untrammeled right to say unkind things to the participants in the debate. I suggest that this does not follow. Further, I suggest that Mr. Lippman's postings "are consistent with a person attempting to keep others from speaking [posting] to a subject by busying them with responding to personal and professional attacks" (A paraphrase of my old Rhetoric textbook). -dave (this nigger is gettin PISSED OFF) c-b -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess) (10/27/87)
In article <1592@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > >Mark has been booted off three different systems (well, m-net, and >chinet), Mark was removed from chinet because he deliberately tried to harm another user of chinet. He was a welcome addition to chinet for at least a year before that, and made many contributions to the conferencing system here. His stories of Afghanistan were enjoyed by all, and his use of usenet was never a problem with me. But he got carried away, and revoking his privileges here was my decision. -- that's the biz, sweetheart..... Randy Suess ..!ihnp4!chinet!randy
edhall@randvax.UUCP (10/27/87)
I can't speak for the rest of the net, but Larry has blown whatever good
will I would have had for him. I've been reading his postings on
telecommunications and in other areas for some time, and he has always
seemed to be a model net-citizen. But the sheer vindictiveness of his
recent postings, the raving tone he uses in them, and the hours and
hours he appears to be willing to devote to them, give me the image of a
spoiled child, and not the mature and knowledgable individual I've
always assumed he was.
I know this is news.admin, hardly the place for personal reflections
like the above, except that there is a lesson here that net
administrators should take note of:
Most of us know each other only through our postings (and, perhaps,
Email). We each have a ``net-persona,'' formed solely on the basis of
these communications, and whether we are listened to or not depends
entirely on the good will we have created in our readers. I'm forever
going to view Larry's postings with suspicion because of this flap, even
postings in technical newsgroups, since I now have this spoiled-child
image of him.
Like it or not, net administrators are leaders and role-models for the
net, so it is especially important that you maintain the net's good
will. Please heed the lesson of Larry Lippman.
-Ed Hall
edhall@rand.org
{allegra,ihnp4}!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhallmjr@osiris.UUCP (10/28/87)
Would you all take your Larry Lippman and Mark Ethan Smith and legalistic whinings and go play out in the street ?! Who cares what Mark wants to call himself !? Who cares what Larry Lippman wrote [verbatim copies from the last 3 weeks deleted] ??!?! You must be truly bored individuals, to think that all this childish shit is worth bothering with. --mjr(); -- "We're fantastically incredibly sorry for all these extremely unreasonable things we did. I can only plead that my simple, barely-sentient friend and myself are underpriviledged, deprived and also college students." - Waldo "D.R." Dobbs.
msmith@dasys1.UUCP (10/29/87)
In article <1782@chinet.UUCP> randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess) writes: > > Mark was removed from chinet because he deliberately tried > to harm another user of chinet. He was a welcome addition Before people start thinking I'm an axe murderer, what happened was somebody posted my .plan to the net, and I responded by posting somebody else's .plan to the net. I've gotta cure myself of this habit of doing unto others as I've been done to--I keep forgetting that when I get hurt no harm was intended, but if I fight back I'm a big bad meanie. ;-) --Mark [First they tell you to turn the other cheek, then they bust you for mooning.] -- Mark Ethan Smith {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!msmith New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/