mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch) (01/01/70)
In article <21140@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: > I think what we need here is a good dose of *informed* opinion. Any of > the lawyers out there (mcb?) willing to comment? Be glad to. After reading the whole exchange, which is simply the latest go-round on this perennial Usenet issue, I'm still not certain exactly what it is that Mr. Lippman is trying to say. All I get from his three latest articles is sort of a generalized alarm about site liability, based on a theory of "publication" by the site. In article <2071@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > > ... > > The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice > > posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by > > users of the system. > > I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites > have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the > above on a public access unix system are worthless. > [...] > An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect > publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes) > the article. To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron, > "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3) > publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the > author. This is certainly a theory held by many people; I certainly would not consider it the state of the law and assert it, as Mr. Lippman does, as fact. Remember that the word "publication" in defamation law, as in copyright law, is a "term of art"; that is, it has a special legal meaning that might be similar to, but not identical to, common usage. In both defamation and copyright law there are instances of copying and distributing a work that any normal person would consider "publication", but do not legally consitute "publication". So we cannot look simply to the common meaning of "publication" to determine if a Usenet site "publishes". There is certainly the issue of approval and control, which would exist in the normal print or broadcast publication process but is not present in Usenet because of the way the software works. Ultimately, it is a public policy issue, and it has not been widely litigated. There has been some criminal jurisprudence regarding the liability of BBS sysops for the distribution of illegally-obtained information like credit card numbers, but no strong appellate rule has emerged. The effect of disclaimers has not been tested at all, to my knowledge, and allusion to statutes that make certain disclaimers inoperative is interesting, but not necessarily a good statement of the law. I would consider the entire field an open issue... > Now, I have gone into considerable detail here and in recent > previous articles because I am trying to convey an important message to > system administrators: > > 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, > I am trying to point out something that could be just as serious, > but may not be quite as obvious. The example of institutional liability for disclosure of proprietary material is not remotely analogous; in that case the institution has agreed to protect the material according to certain standards. No institution , to my knowledge, has engaged to be responsible for its users' Usenet articles, and organizational liability based on publisher status remains a theory, not law. It may turn out to be a valid theory, or it may not. It may turn out that prominent disclaimers will effectively prevent liability, or it may not. Certainly admins should be aware of the potential for liability, but I do not see a reason for self-censorship. Quite frankly, I'm still not sure what the shouting is about in the present case. This cort of case seems to come up every years or so. The first time I came across Matthew Wiener was some time back when he wanted to sue Rich Rosen for defamation, and I posted a couple of articles to try to get him (and others who were beginning to get hot under the collar) to cool down. As for the Smith/Lippman business, I find it difficult to follow either Mr. Lippman's argument that he was defamed, or that there should be some formal mechanism of "identifying" Usenet users, a process that I find dubious in theory and impossible in practice. Many sites have a policy that they will not provide personal information about their users, for employment reasons or simply for purposes of privacy. Under what doctrine Mr. Lippman proposes that they do so, I am unable to ascertain. The fact that "Mark Ethan Smith" is in fact not a pseudonym and can easily be located by any number of people lends no support to Mr. Lippman's theory. Personally, I find it difficult to defend anything that Mark Ethan Smith does; the last time I did so, she managed to flame me for some unrelated foolishness about "diminutive pronouns". Frankly, I have better things to do. But the legal issues are, I think, worth examining. Michael C. Berch Member of the California Bar ARPA: mcb@lll-tis.arpa UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
gds@sri-spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (01/01/70)
In article <21140@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >- Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a >-publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to: >-(1) "news"; (2) "articles"; > >This is a convenient metaphor, but only that: a metaphor. Usenet should >not be confused with broadcast media. I seem to recall some discussion about the time Stargate was being planned as to the legal status of Usenet and the responsibilities of sites, posters, and so forth. I don't recall all the details but I am pretty sure that Usenet was considered to be a broadcast medium. Perhaps someone from the Stargate crew could enlighten us with the legal questions posed about Usenet. --gregbo
leonard@qiclab.pdx.com (Leonard Erickson) (01/01/70)
Darci, there is one point in these postings that has caught my attention. Larry claimed that Mark's posting was slanderous. Mark claimed that Larry's was libelous. I believe (I may be wrong, but it'd take too long to track down the posting) that Mark said something to the effect of "if you think it's slander, sue me" Unfortunately, as Larry points out, Mark can sue him, but he can't sue Mark! Why? Because he has got no way to get an address to send the summons to! Therefore, Mark is _not_ responsible for any postings as he cannot be held accountable for them! (I may have details wrong, but the general picture _is_ clear!) Before replying note that I have not said _one_word_ as to who is right or wrong. As far as I can see, the _only_ replies can be of the form "he actually said this, not that" or "but you _can_/_can_not_ get his address (with details)" Any other responses would be attempts to evade the issue. -- 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."
rees@apollo.uucp (Jim Rees) (09/28/87)
Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing) hoax? What is she like in person? Would anyone who has met her please comment? By the way, in a free society, I think we need these people, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.
genji@opal.berkeley.edu (Genji Schmeder) (09/29/87)
In article <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp> rees@apollo.uucp (Jim Rees) writes: >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing) > >By the way, in a free society, I think we need these people, regardless >of whether we agree with them or not. Mark Ethan Smith has not yet replied to my demand last week for either the names of the "woman hating" programmers working at UCB computer center or a retraction of his/her accusation. (Smith's account, era1987@violet, has been logged in several times since my message appeared in news.) Smith also claimed that woman haters here have maliciously tampered with news software, another serious charge. No society needs groundless attacks on anyone's character.
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (09/30/87)
In article <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, genji@opal.berkeley.edu (Genji Schmeder) writes: > >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing) > > Mark Ethan Smith has not yet replied to my demand last week for either > the names of the "woman hating" programmers working at UCB computer > center or a retraction of his/her accusation. (Smith's account, > era1987@violet, has been logged in several times since my message > appeared in news.) Smith also claimed that woman haters here have > maliciously tampered with news software, another serious charge. > > No society needs groundless attacks on anyone's character. 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. I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to: 1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession about "Smith". 2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms. <> 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?"
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (09/30/87)
In article <2050@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
< I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer
<which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon
<any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to:
<
<1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession
< about "Smith".
<
<2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms.
And I view the above as horsefeathers. Firstly, it's hard to tell what
you are complaining about.
Are you complaining that era1987@violet.berkeley.edu isn't tied to
some real name? Do you think that it should be "mark," like yours? Or
maybe mes, like mine? Nuts to that. The UCB Computer Center, unlike
many other facilities, allows users to choose whatever they wish as a
login name. This is a *good* thing. It allows people freedom of
expression in their user names. So we get era1987, sikukkut, kittycat,
antwerp, and the like. Likewise, those that force their idea of what
users name should be (leading to attrocieties like "mwmeyer", or
AA1487) don't always use the same names. So long as the poster in
question always puts the same signature/name (choose one) in the
posting, who cares? I recognize people by that, not by some bogus
network address. As far as I can tell, MES has always signed things as
MES. What more do you want?
Or are you complaining that you can't find a physical person to map to
"era1987@violet.berkeley.edu"? So what? You think you can find a
physical person to map to "mwm@eris.berkeley.edu"? If so, it's because
I've chosen to make that information publicly available. But you may
not be able to anyway. Likewise, I don't know a physical person to map
to "larry@kitty.UUCP". Doesn't bother me - why should it?
I will assure you that we can find MES if we really want to. Either
that, or turn off era1987 for non-payment of bills :-). I assume that
people responsible for kitty.UUCP can find you if they need to. Since
I can always complain to postmaster@site or root@site or some such,
there's no need for me to be able to find any given user on a site. So
long as this remains true, no user is really anonymous on USENet.
<mike
--
The sun is shining slowly. Mike Meyer
The birds are flying so low. mwm@berkeley.edu
Honey, you're my one and only. ucbvax!mwm
So pay me what you owe me. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETjj@alice.UUCP (09/30/87)
Mark Ethan Smith is real, and "Mark Ethan Smith", I've been told by quite a few people, is the person's REAL name, no alias, anonymity, etc, included. Lots of people don't agree with Mark, myself included. That doesn't make Mark unreal. Larry Lippman can read soc.women for himself, and find Mark Smith right at home, there. -- 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.
darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) (10/01/87)
In article <2050@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, genji@opal.berkeley.edu (Genji Schmeder) writes: >> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate... BTW, yes though we have not met in person. > No Usenet site should have anonymous users. Since Mark does sign his articles with his legal name how does this imply that he is an anonymous user? >Public funds should not be >used to propagate the whimsical, irresponsible ravings of a person who >uses fraud and deception in concealing their identity. Excuse me, but since Mark Ethan Smith is the legal name of the person you are talking about, in what way is this fraud or concealing an identity? Just because "Mark" is a name traditionally used for males? What about the name Darci? I have seen it used for both men and women - are we then concealing our identity? Must every person with a name used for either gender state their gender upon demand to be kept from being accused of fraud and concealment? >If "Smith" wishes to engage in such anonymous activity, let him/her/it >confine postings to privately owned BBS's - not Usenet. And if Larry Lippman continues to falsely accuse people in a public forum of fraud then I suggest that the appropriate system admin: 1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession about "Lippman". 2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Lippman's") which are used to accuse people of fraud when they have no evidence to support such accusations. Lippman has in the past posted some very obnoxious remarks and so the above really doesn't really surprise me - I just think he should learn to use the 'n', 'j', and/or 'u' keys instead of demanding that people who don't conform to his idea of "proper" be denied access to a public forum. Darci | (which is really spelled "Darcy" on my birth certificate and Chapman| nowhere else - don't want to be accused of concealing anything ;-)
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (10/01/87)
Since someone has recommended throwing off Mark Ethan Smith for the nth
time, I feel obligated to support his continued presence. It is true that
his recent allegations were unfounded. It is also true that Mark has
undergone things in the past which would predispose him to think such
allegations might be correct. It is also true that Mark is one of the most
widely valued and controversial members of soc.women. There is absolutely
no reason to even consider deleting yet more of Mark's accounts.
--
Tim Maroney, {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <2050@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > I call upon >any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to: >1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession > about "Smith". The BEC administration has in its possession information which we feel is sufficient to identify Mark Smith as a 'real' person. It is our policy to keep all personal information we possess concerning our users strictly confidential. -- 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!"
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <2050@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > No Usenet site should have anonymous users. Usenet is not (or >SHOULD not) be conducted as a juvenile BBS. MES is not an anonymous user. Mark Ethan Smith is, in fact, MES's legal name. There is no anonymity and no deception in his postings, and they are very serious, not whimsical. He has an unusual point of view (I use "he", though MES is a woman, because that is his preference -- if you want to get into a battle about the appropriateness of pronouns please check out soc.women and not this group) which he argues vigorously, just like many well-known posters. He has never made the top 25 or even come close; most of the volume has come from the MES-haters. > I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer >which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon >any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to: > >1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession > about "Smith". Only after Larry Lippman's administrator posts all personal information in his or her possession about Larry Lippman. MES has posted quite a lot of accurate information about his unusual life and experiences. The very first message he ever posted to the net explained, in detail, who he was and why he had his name legally changed, along with a lot of personal history. Everything since then has been consistent with that. I haven't seen Larry do the same. Yes, MES's attack against Berkeley news administrators was unjustified. But he has been booted from two systems in the past and treated unfairly at others. A little paranoia is not surprising given the history. And given that he is charged money for use of violet.berkeley.edu and his only use of the system is for news and mail, it seems reasonable for him to expect that they will be maintained. I do not agree with many things MES says, but I STRONGLY defend his right to say it. This group is not for discussion of personalities, and no action is called for on the part of news administrators. Followups to alt.flame. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net
fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (10/01/87)
In the referenced article, jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes:
Yes, MES's attack against Berkeley news administrators was
unjustified. But he has been booted from two systems in
the past and treated unfairly at others. A little paranoia
is not surprising given the history. And given that he is
charged money for use of violet.berkeley.edu and his only
use of the system is for news and mail, it seems reasonable
for him to expect that they will be maintained.
Mark may be paying for the use of violet, but that payment does
not mean any guarantee of netnews service; as both Mike Meyer and
I noted, netnews at the UCB Computer Center is an unsupported
software system, maintained by Mike when he has time out from his
other official duties.
If Mark wants guaranteed netnews service, he should petition Academic
Computing Services to make netnews an officially supported service.
As it stands, if netnews breaks or misbehaves on the Computer Center
systems, it will be fixed when someone can get around to it.
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edudaveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) (10/01/87)
In article <2050@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, genji@opal.berkeley.edu (Genji Schmeder) writes: >> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing) > I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer >which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon >any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to: > >1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession > about "Smith". > >2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms. Gentlepersons. This is not a matter which may usefully be discussed in the news administration newsgroup. You may indulge in flame wars on the alt subnet, in the flame group. The operation of sites on USENET is the responsibility of their owners, and unless actual harm is being done to other sites or persons by mail, the operation is not a matter for the courts or for the net. If you have probable cause to believe that harm is being done, please make it a matter for the courts. This message is being cross-posted to misc.legal. -- 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.
larry@kitty.UUCP (10/02/87)
In article <1975@midas.TEK.COM>, darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) writes: > >> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate... > > BTW, yes though we have not met in person. > > > No Usenet site should have anonymous users. > > Since Mark does sign his articles with his legal name how does this imply > that he is an anonymous user? How do you KNOW that is his/her legal name? There have been serious questions raised in a number of articles by a number of people as to whether this person is real. I am certainly not the only person to raise such questions - only the most recent. I posted my article to news.admin following an article by an administrator at berkeley who stated that "Smith" had not responded with evidence to support some outrageous accusations about persons at berkeley interfering with news. There is not one shred of evidence posted to identify "Smith"; even you admit that you have never met her/him. "Smith" posts no address or telephone number, and does not appear to be an employee of or student at any organization on the Net. I can pick up the telephone and eventually find you through Tektronix. You can certainly find me at the organization and telephone number always appended to my articles. But we can't do this for "Smith". So, what EVIDENCE exists that this person is "real" as claimed? > And if Larry Lippman continues to falsely accuse people in a public forum > of fraud then I suggest that the appropriate system admin: > 1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession > about "Lippman". > 2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Lippman's") which are used to accuse > people of fraud when they have no evidence to support such accusations. *I* am the system administrator at my site, and thank you very much, but I'll leave my account intact. *I* take responsibility for everything I post. I consider Usenet to be an electronic publication, and as such feel that anyone who posts articles has to bear legal responsibility for same (the site also shares responsibility). I don't say anything that I am not prepared to defend - legally, or otherwise. If you or anyone else wants to sue me for libel, by all means do so. You can find me at my organization almost every day, and the street address is available from the uucp maps or directory assistance in order to serve a summons and complaint. But "Smith" is quite insulated from such recourse. How does one find "Smith" through a public access UNIX system or as a non-student paid account at berkeley? I object to this lack of recourse. I find it interesting that in spite of serious questions raised about "Smith", in a recent article, 1501@dasys1.UUCP, rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) takes a protective attitude by stating "It is our policy to keep all personal information we possess concerning our users strictly confidential." This strikes me as a rather formidable and defensive position, considering that dasys1 is a "public access" UNIX system run as a hobby by 20 year-old Charles F. Foreman from his parent's apartment in Manhattan. [I have proof of these details, in case anyone is wondering]. I state the above, because it makes ME wonder if "Smith" is merely an assumed name used by young Mr. Foreman. I have a particular "beef" with "Smith" - who, because I disagreed that "pornography causes violence" - stated in article 1412@dasys1: "If you're the same Larry Lippman I've heard of, you've produced porn for your friends and to sell products, and are not in the least bit reasonably objective on the subject." "Smith" has no knowledge of me, no knowledge of my friends, and no knowledge of my work (I am a consulting engineer and research scientist - I don't sell products!). The use of the word "if" in "Smith's" allegation does not function as a disclaimer of liability for false accusation. So my point is: how do I find "Smith" if I want recourse for his/her libelous statement? UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is it responsible administration for the sites permitting "Smith" accounts to protect and insulate this person from responsibilty for his/her statements? > Lippman has in the past posted some very obnoxious remarks and so the > above really doesn't really surprise me - I just think he should learn to > use the 'n', 'j', and/or 'u' keys instead of demanding that people who don't > conform to his idea of "proper" be denied access to a public forum. Funny, isn't it, that *I* am trying to clean up the same type of nonsense to which *YOU*, Ms. Champman have objected, to wit: [---start of article excerpt---] From: darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) Newsgroups: soc.women Subject: Re: Outgrowth of attacks by Mark Ethan Smith Summary: Really, Good-bye Keywords: Please read this... Message-ID: <1974@midas.TEK.COM> Date: 30 Sep 87 19:56:03 GMT References: <1546@killer.UUCP> <2403@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <4232@udenva.UUCP> <7399@sri-unix.ARPA> <1645@chinet.UUCP> <7676@sri-unix.ARPA> Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. In article <7676@sri-unix.ARPA> maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes: >Here's how I take it. This group has degenerated into stupid >quarrels over who is masquerading as whom of which sex and why, >and I don't have time for it. So Molly is masquerading and Rhonda >isn't and let's define what IS woman-bashing and what isn't.... ... I've tried to listen to many sides of an argument, only to get frustrated when people insist upon clouding the issues, side-stepping arguments, and being so closed-minded as to make the whole thing useless. The last straw has been multiple cases of men posting with "female" names and one going so far as to claiming certain feelings "as a woman." [---end of article excerpt---] So, we are on the "same side" in this issue - although you don't seem inclined to admit that. <> 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?"
darcic@midas.UUCP (10/02/87)
First of all, I have taken the majority of this to e-mail, but feel obliged to post the following: In article <2058@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <1975@midas.TEK.COM>, darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) writes: >> > No Usenet site should have anonymous users. >> Since Mark does sign his articles with his legal name how does this imply >> that he is an anonymous user? > How do you KNOW that is his/her legal name? How do you KNOW that it isn't? And since you don't KNOW that it isn't, how do come off accusing Mark of fraud and concealment? You have never answered how Mark Ethan Smith's actions constitute *fraud*. > *I* am the system administrator at my site, and thank you very >much, but I'll leave my account intact. Well, how convienant - really, now, I didn't expect the sysadmin (even if it wasn't you) to take my suggestion any more seriously than I expected the other sysadmins to take *yours* seriously. > *I* take responsibility for everything I post. I consider Usenet >to be an electronic publication, and as such feel that anyone who posts >articles has to bear legal responsibility for same (the site also shares >responsibility). I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility whatsoever for any articles posted by its users. >I don't say anything that I am not prepared to defend - legally, or otherwise. Well, according to Mark Ethan Smith himself: [begin of article excerpt] Newsgroups: soc.women,misc.legal,news.misc Message-ID: <1514@dasys1.UUCP> Date: 2 Oct 87 04:58:10 GMT References: <1939@midas.TEK.COM> Reply-To: msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) Organization: The Big Electric Cat The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by users of the system. I am fully and totally responsible for all my postings, and in particular I am specifically fully responsible for my postings regarding Larry Lippman. BEC (dasys1) is in no way responsible for anything I post. [...] Larry Lippman's phone call to the operator of this site was apparently meant to intimidate. He apparently wanted to hold the site responsible for my postings, which he apparently claimed were slanderous. If he believes that anything I said was slanderous, which it definitely was not, he can contact me directly. I am responsible for my postings, not the site. Larry phoned, rather than writing to, the SA, apparently to maintain plausible deniability regaring his intimidation. Such intimidation is reprehensible. For public access and free speech to exist, Larry, you have to accept that the individual, not the public access site, is responsible for postings. If you have a problem with me, contact me. And post publicly, where people can see what you are saying and doing. [end of article excerpt] And finally: > Funny, isn't it, that *I* am trying to clean up the same type of >nonsense to which *YOU*, Ms. Champman have objected, to wit: [I say about leaving soc.women: ] >The last straw has been >multiple cases of men posting with "female" names and one going so far as to >claiming certain feelings "as a woman." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >[---end of article excerpt---] > So, we are on the "same side" in this issue - although you don't >seem inclined to admit that. WRONG, Mr. Limpman, we are not on the same side at all. 1. Mark Ethan Smith has never claimed to be a man. (If you make that assumption based on the poster's name alone, that is your mistake). Neither has he posted something that related to his feelings "as a man". There was, however, a man who *claimed to be a woman* and expressed certain views because he "was a woman." That is was I was objecting to. I hope that you (and others) can see the difference. Please also notice that I did not ever and do not now advocate the pulling of that person's account and/or USENET access. I did however, decide that I needed a break from all of that and have since unsubscribed to soc.women (hint, hint, Mr. Lippman). 2. According to Mark Ethan Smith, that is his legal name and as I have never seen proof otherwise, I will have to stand by that. (What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?) However, I had strong suspicions as to the real gender of the person I mentioned above and proceeded to take the issue to e-mail where I believe such queries belong. I have also been told that if you have a question about Mark's gender (like "how can you say a woman feels this if you're a man?") he will most likely share that information with you via *e-mail*. Darci Chapman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>> Intelligent responses welcome, flames to /dev/null <<<<<<<<< {major backbone}!tektronix!midas!darcic darcic@midas.UUCP darcic%midas.tek.com@relay.cs.net darcic@midas.TEK.COM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (10/03/87)
In article <2050@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, genji@opal.berkeley.edu (Genji Schmeder) writes: > No Usenet site should have anonymous users. Usenet is not (or >SHOULD not) be conducted as a juvenile BBS. Agreed (so far). All our users must identify themselves by real name in their .signature files, and the 'gecos' field of their passwd entry contains a real, valid name. No exceptions. > I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer >which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon >any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to: > >1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession > about "Smith". > >2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms. I've got to laugh. MES has an account, he is a real person, and we have in our posession sufficient information to verify this as a *fact*. In fact, Mark and I have spoken on the telephone on occasion, and *I* placed the call to the number supplied. Post to the net? Sorry, our policy is that registration information is confidential, and will only be disclosed upon presentation of legal force (ie: a subpoena). Somehow I doubt you can muster that. Revoke any accounts?? Not unless a clear violation of our policy occurs, and I don't see it here (and yes, I have been following this entire thing). "Not a disclaimer": As administrator of this system, and President of our company, I am responsible for what goes into, out of, and is processed by our computer equipment. -- Karl Denninger UUCP : ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl Macro Computer Solutions Dial : +1 (312) 566-8909 (300-1200) "Quality solutions at a fair price" Voice: +1 (312) 566-8910 (24 hrs)
gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU (10/03/87)
In article <3094@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Since someone has recommended throwing off Mark Ethan Smith for the nth >time, I feel obligated to support his continued presence. I concur. Considering the stuff Mr. Maroney, for instance, has pulled without prejudice to his ability to post, it would scarcely be fair to yank Mark E. Smith's account for the "crime" of annoying people. ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnet Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Imagine what the world would be like if football was a worthy ritual performed in stadiums but mathematics was a misunderstood activity ignored by almost all.
msmith@dasys1.UUCP (Mark E. Smith) (10/03/87)
In article <21054@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes: >As it stands, if netnews breaks or misbehaves on the Computer Center >systems, it will be fixed when someone can get around to it. And if I should decide that anybody is due an apology, I'll do that when I get around to it, and not before. --Mark -- Mark Ethan Smith {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!msmith New York, NY, USA {philabs}!tg/
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (10/03/87)
In article <2058@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <1975@midas.TEK.COM>, darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) writes: >> >> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate... >> >> BTW, yes though we have not met in person. >> >> > No Usenet site should have anonymous users. >> >> Since Mark does sign his articles with his legal name how does this imply >> that he is an anonymous user? > > How do you KNOW that is his/her legal name? > There have been serious questions raised in a number of articles >by a number of people as to whether this person is real. > There is not one shred of evidence posted to identify "Smith"; > "Smith" posts no address >or telephone number, and does not appear to be an employee of or student >at any organization on the Net. I didn't know this was a pre-requisite,to be an employee or a student,or to reveal personal information to anyone on the net. >I can pick up the telephone and eventually >find you through Tektronix. You can certainly find me at the organization >and telephone number always appended to my articles. But we can't do >this for "Smith". So, what EVIDENCE exists that this person is "real" >as claimed? >*I* am the system administrator at my site, and thank you very >much, but I'll leave my account intact. >*I* take responsibility for everything I post. I consider Usenet >to be an electronic publication, and as such feel that anyone who posts >articles has to bear legal responsibility for same (the site also shares >responsibility). I don't say anything that I am not prepared to defend >legally, or otherwise. Can't fault you for that,it seems to be the right way to look at things. >But "Smith" is quite insulated from such recourse. How does one >find "Smith" through a public access UNIX system or as a non-student >paid account at berkeley? >1501@dasys1.UUCP, rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) takes a protective >attitude by stating "It is our policy to keep all personal information >we possess concerning our users strictly confidential." This strikes >me as a rather formidable and defensive position, considering that dasys1 >is a "public access" UNIX system run as a hobby by 20 year-old Charles F. >Foreman from his parent's apartment in Manhattan. [I have proof of these >details, in case anyone is wondering]. You attack the person for doing the only sensible thing possible. You just can't give people's names,addresses,etc out without incurring some sort of legal liability yourself (even if you are an admin)... > I state the above, because it makes ME wonder if "Smith" is merely > an assumed name used by young Mr. Foreman. Right..Mr. Foreman is going to call across the country,pay for access to a machine at berkeley,just to make your life miserable. (I think someone that runs a "dreaded" public access UNIX site has much more pressing things to do with their money than pay for accounts all over the country). I think you have a real attitude problem concerning Public Access Systems and their role on the net. It is also apparrent that you have some sort of problem with people younger than yourself. I wonder what "young Mr. Foreman" ever did to you? > I have a particular "beef" with "Smith" - who, because I disagreed >that "pornography causes violence" - stated in article 1412@dasys1: If you have some sort of personal problem with MES,then consult a lawyer, and stop dragging this crap through the net.It seems that MES delights in baiting certain people,and you have obviously given her the response she was looking for. > So my point is: how do I find "Smith" if I want recourse for >his/her libelous statement? > UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is it responsible administration for >the sites permitting "Smith" accounts to protect and insulate this person >from responsibilty for his/her statements? > Like the conscientious person I am,all follow-ups have been redirected to alt.flame,and Mr. Lippman,if you don't get alt.* feeds then I will be happy to send you one. Len Rose -* Netsys Public Access Network *- The East Coast Machine. 301-540-3656,3657,3658,3659 3B2/Unix SV3.0
larry@kitty.UUCP (10/04/87)
In article <8710030835.AA26492@garnet.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU writes: > >Since someone has recommended throwing off Mark Ethan Smith for the nth > >time, I feel obligated to support his continued presence. > > I concur. Considering the stuff Mr. Maroney, for instance, has > pulled without prejudice to his ability to post, it would > scarcely be fair to yank Mark E. Smith's account for the "crime" > of annoying people. In my particular issue concerning "Smith", I am not referring to "annoyance". I am not referring to expressing opinion. I am not referring to issues of "freedom of speech". I am referring to the commission of libel. You do agree, do you not, that there are "bounds" to freedom of speech? Anyone has the right to express opinion. Usenet is no different from a newspaper: anyone can pretty much say anything whose "truth" is doubtful as long as it is qualified as an OPINION, and NOT AS A FACT. Examples of acceptable statements under most circumstances are: 1. I believe X has committed criminal acts. 2. X has probably committed criminal acts. 3. In my opinion, X has committed criminal acts. 4. X seems like a person who has committed criminal acts. 5. X is alleged to have committed criminal acts. Now, there has to be SOME basis for expressing the opinion in order to be truly free from committing libel, but there is quite a bit of leeway provided such qualifying lanaguage is used. What one canNOT state without incurring liability (unless it is true) is: 6. X has committed criminal acts. Stating (6) above in writing constitutes libel, provided that: (1) the statement is in fact false and (2) the person making the statement knew it to be false. Proving that the person making the false statement did so with "intent" to commit harm may or may not be an issue, depending upon circumstances. All it takes to "weasel" out of a libelous situation is to use a "qualified" form of making the statement, such as (1) to (5) above, and to establish SOME "information and belief" for making the statement. In at least two incidents "Smith" did not use such a "qualifier", and in at least one incident "Smith" committed the tort of libel. Notice that I represented AS A FACT that libel was committed by "Smith". So you can be reasonably sure that I am certain of my ground. So the point is: I am concerned with "Smith" using the electronic publication of Usenet as a means to commit the act of libel; NOT any possible acts of annoyance. Libel == injury != annoyance. And this is why I call upon system administrators to evaluate whether they should allow a person such as "Smith" to have Usenet access. And quite frankly, I suggest that anyone who does NOT have responsibility for site administration stay out of this discussion. Based upon my experience, maximum freedom is usually advocated by those with minimum responsibility - so I already KNOW what the opinion of most non-administrators will be. <> 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?"
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (10/05/87)
As quoted from <2050@kitty.UUCP> by larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman): +--------------- | I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer | which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon | any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to: | | 1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession | about "Smith". +--------------- Son, if you think the sysadmins at ncoast are going to willingly violate someone's privacy just to make _you_ happy -- and that we have the time to keep a posting of such users updated for you -- then you've got a surprise coming. _IF_ you have a legitimate gripe about some user on ncoast, send mail to ncoast!root and we'll do something about it. Otherwise, I see no reason to inform the world who ncoast!trucker or etc. are; if the user with that account wishes to inform the world of tho s/he is, fine, but it's none of _my_ business, nor is it the business of Rich, Phil, or Bob, the other sysadmins on ncoast. Clear? -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!mandrill!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>> "...he calls _that_ a `little adventure'?!" - Cmdr. Ryker
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/05/87)
In article <1985@midas.TEK.COM>, darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) writes: First, just to clear up a minor point: > You have never answered how Mark Ethan Smith's actions constitute > *fraud*. *I* never made that accusation about "Smith" in particular. You have taken my remarks out of context and have deleted the prior references. In any event, that accusation and others were made in articles before mine, as below: References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp$$> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> $$> In article <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU$$>, genji@opal.berkeley.edu (Genji Schmeder) writes: $$> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing) $$> >hoax? $$> $$> Mark Ethan Smith has not yet replied to my demand last week for either $$> the names of the "woman hating" programmers working at UCB computer $$> center or a retraction of his/her accusation. (Smith's account, $$> era1987@violet, has been logged in several times since my message $$> appeared in news.) Smith also claimed that woman haters here have $$> maliciously tampered with news software, another serious charge. Now to the important issue... > I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility > whatsoever for any articles posted by its users. > ... > The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice > posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by > users of the system. I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the above on a public access unix system are worthless. Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to: (1) "news"; (2) "articles"; (3) "authors"; (4) "media" [magnetic media is sufficient]; (5) "distribution"; (6) "subscription"; and (7) "solicitation for paid subscription". The last element (7) is particularly aimed at "public access UNIX" sites which generally charge subscribers for access to Usenet; also in this instance, many public access UNIX systems solicit subscribers with Usenet access being the primary "attraction". An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes) the article. To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron, "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, and not the author; the issue of the author is secondary, and in some cases is immaterial. Consider as an example, a famous case of libel that ultimately caused the collapse of the Saturday Evening Post. Wallace Butts, the athletic director of the University of Georgia, brought a multimillion dollar libel suit against Curtis Publishing Co. (publisher of the Saturday Evening Post) for publishing a false story which claimed that Butts had conspired to rig a college football game. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was affirmed in favor of Butts. There was no issue raised concerning liability of the author - only liability of the publisher. Concerning the issue of disclaimers as alleged to be used by site dasys1: Most disclaimers sound good, many people believe them, but in reality they are usually meaningless. In fact, most (if not all) states have laws pertaining to "prohibited contracts"; i.e., there are laws which specifically state that certain types of disclaimers of liability can NEVER be valid. As an example, in New York State the invalidation of certain types of disclaimers of liability is contained in the "General Obligations Law", Article 5 Title 3. There are over a dozen detailed statutes contained within the above law invalidating various types of disclaimers; some examples of the titles of these statutes are: 5-321 "Agreements exempting lessors from liability for negligence void and unenforcable." 5-322.1 "Agreements exempting owners and contractors from liability for negligence void and unenforcable." 5-325 "Garages and parking places; agreements exempting from liability for negligence void." 5-326 "Agreements exempting pools, gymnasiums, places of public amusement or recreation and similar establishments from liability for negligence void and unenforcable." How many times have you seen parking garages with signs proclaiming such language as "Not responsible for damage or loss of vehicles or personal property contained therein.", or with such language printed on the parking ticket? Well - surprise! - such disclaimers are invalid; the parking garage IS responsible. Now, I have gone into considerable detail here and in recent previous articles because I am trying to convey an important message to system administrators: 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, I am trying to point out something that could be just as serious, but may not be quite as obvious. 2. Exercise some discretion in whom you allow to have Usenet access. Employees and students have some implied reasons to act in a responsible manner; i.e., their employment or academic standing is "on the line". Guest accounts and "people off the street" usually have no such implied reasons to act in responsible manner; i.e., if they act in an irresponsible manner and get kicked off the system, they take the attitude "So what? I'll go elsewhere". That's not such an easy attitude for an employee or student to take, however. As an example of the above, I have NEVER seen an article containing defamatory language from an AT&T site. AT&T sites constitute a significant portion of the Net. Think about this. In a recent article on this newsgroup (to which I did not feel like directly replying), some questions were raised as to whether the spectre of government regulation or censorship is being raised. This is absolutely NOT the case. I am not talking creating any new type of regulation. Any laws which might apply to abuse of mail or Usenet article posting already exist. I am neither advocating censorship of electronic mail nor advocating censorship of Usenet articles. You are all familiar with the concept of a "trusted host" as applied to networks. I am trying to convey the concept of a "trusted user" as applied to mail and Usenet articles. Can you trust your users to act in a responsible manner and keep your organization free from liability? Do your users have any incentive to act in a responsible manner? Or are they people "off the street" who pay their $ 5.00 or $ 10.00 or so per month, and could care less about the consequences of their actions to your organization? I have done the best I can to make my point. If administrators want to heed my advice, fine; if not, that's fine, too. I am just trying to be helpful by conveying some information which is particularly contemporaneous with, uh, "other events". I have said "my piece" as clearly as I can, and I will now attempt to get out of the discussion loop. If someone has serious questions or wants references as to the legal issues, I will be glad to provide them. If someone tries to "bait" me into further antagonistic discussion, I will do the best I can to resist temptation and keep quiet; however, I promise nothing, since I am a tough old SOB who doesn't take shit from anyone, and who doesn't back down from a fight. <> 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?"
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (10/05/87)
In article <2071@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
-> I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility
-> whatsoever for any articles posted by its users.
-> ...
-> The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice
-> posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by
-> users of the system.
-
- I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites
-have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the
-above on a public access unix system are worthless.
This is presented as fact, but how qualified are you to make such a judgement?
Are you an attorney?
- Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a
-publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to:
-(1) "news"; (2) "articles";
This is a convenient metaphor, but only that: a metaphor. Usenet should
not be confused with broadcast media.
-(6) "subscription"
Another metaphor; there is no central entity providing news only to
those who "subscribe" to it. In the context of netnews, "subscription"
is just a convenient way of describing a topic selection algorithm, and
does not carry the connotations usually associated with the word.
-; and (7) "solicitation for paid subscription". The last element (7) is
-particularly aimed at "public access UNIX" sites which generally charge
-subscribers for access to Usenet; also in this instance, many public access
-UNIX systems solicit subscribers with Usenet access being the primary
-"attraction".
I believe the charges are usually for access to the system per se (which
often includes Usenet access), not the Usenet access itself. For instance,
Mark Ethan Smith has an account on violet.berkeley.edu, which costs money,
but Usenet is an unsupported service on that machine. Users who pay
for access aren't guaranteed that netnews will be available. I suspect
the same goes for most sites on the network.
- An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect
-publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes)
-the article.
This is a peculiar interpretation; "sites" are only machines and are
incapable of taking any conscious action. The site administrators don't
have to take any specific action to cause distribution of the article;
once the software is initially set up, the only person who needs to
act to cause distribution of an article is the author, by submitting it
to the news posting program. If *anyone* can be considered the "publisher"
of a netnews article, it certainly must be the author!
-To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron,
-"Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3)
-publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the
-author.
This is simply a bald assertion on your part, given without any kind
of supporting arguments. While net postings *may* be actionable, the
only person who can reasonably be held responsible is the author of
the article, who *I* argue is also the publisher.
Holding the site (or more properly, the site administrator) responsible
for a usenet posting is like holding the postmaster liable for something
sent through the mail. Neither individual has the responsibility, or
even the ability (in the case of a heavily used site) to screen the
content of every message to ensure its acceptability. (In other
words, I am arguing that the network sites should be treated as common
carriers, just like the post office and the phone company.)
- Concerning the issue of disclaimers as alleged to be used by site
-dasys1: Most disclaimers sound good, many people believe them, but in
-reality they are usually meaningless.
That doesn't prove a thing about any particular disclaimer not covered
by the examples you give, such as the one used by dasys1.
-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/?
That would be a problem, but it would hardly be libel. This situation is
presumably a violation of a licensing agreement, which would impose a
responsibility on the site administration to ensure that unauthorized parties
are not given access to source code. The situation simply doesn't extrapolate
to libel, so this example is irrelevant.
-2. Exercise some discretion in whom you allow to have Usenet access.
- Employees and students have some implied reasons to act in a
- responsible manner; i.e., their employment or academic standing
- is "on the line".
-[...]
- As an example of the above, I have NEVER seen an article containing
- defamatory language from an AT&T site. AT&T sites constitute a
- significant portion of the Net. Think about this.
Well, I've seen plenty of ads for dining room furniture in NJ posted to
the net with world distribution! Yes, from AT&T sites. And I've seen
plenty of obnoxious postings from places like DEC and Gould. So maybe
AT&T insists that its employees post reasonably, but this cannot in any
way be construed as an acknowledgement of responsibility. It's far more
likely to be a matter of public relations...they don't want representatives
of their company making idiots of themselves on the net.
- I have done the best I can to make my point. If administrators want
-to heed my advice, fine; if not, that's fine, too. I am just trying to be
-helpful by conveying some information which is particularly contemporaneous
-with, uh, "other events".
Well, thanks for trying, but to me it sounds more like you're trying
to justify your desire to hassle the site administrator of someone who
posted an article you didn't like, and make it harder for controversial
people like Mark Smith to obtain public access accounts on other systems.
I think what we need here is a good dose of *informed* opinion. Any of
the lawyers out there (mcb?) willing to comment?
-- Jim Lewis
U.C. Berkeleybyrnes@ge-dab.UUCP (10/06/87)
The real problem here is that Mr. Lipman isn't mature enough to either ignore a posting or to write a reply by e-mail to the sender. Mr. Lipman if you can't handle the traffic on usenet I advise you to give up your account and go back to reading books or whatever else you might want to do with your time. But to call someones sys-admin just because you don't agree with what they said, shows a major lack of maturity. Grow up or give up, but don't bother the thousands of other people who don't care for the drivel you post about how your feelings were hurt!!
smith@ncoast.UUCP (Phil Smith) (10/06/87)
> Article <4802@ncoast.UUCP> From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) > As quoted from <2050@kitty.UUCP> by larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman): > +--------------- > | I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer > | which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon > | any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to: > | > | 1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession > | about "Smith". > +--------------- > >remarks by allbery have been deleted (if you want to know what he said >look for his article.) It sounds like anyone with the name of smith is being accused of being a phony,non-real-person,liar. I take offense at this. I have seen good and bad smiths on the net (i won't point them out). If you wanted to refer to fakers, why didn't say 'John Doe', which is the traditional way to identify unindentifiable persons? So far as John Does, we at ncoast are only concerned that the person is someone WE know an identity of. It isn't the business of anyone else on the net to have that information. If a John Doe causes problems on the net, a note to ncoast!root will ensure the problem is resolved. -- decvax!mandrill!ncoast!smith ncoast!smith@cwru.csnet (ncoast!smith%cwru.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA)
dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (10/07/87)
This whole argument is getting a bit amusing. (Just a bit, not
much). People are talking about libel and slander and law suits
and ....
Please remember one major thing. Libel and slander MUST involve
damage to one's reputation and must be monetary in nature.
Law cases have shown that a "libel" isn't such if NO ONE
seriously would believe that the statement is to be taken
seriously. Not that the court will accept the "I was only
joking" defense very often but I seriously doubt that screaming
"!!!!!!" during a shouting match would get too much attention.
Also even if it is taken seriously, damage must be shown. Pain
and suffering, loss of business, damage to one's professional
reputation (to the degree it affects employability), etc and so
forth. To some degree this must include the degree of
publication and the nature of readers.
AFTER you explain to the judge and jury about the esoterics of
computer bulletin boards, mailing lists and stuff, then explain
what a flaming match is. After explaining some of the USENET
classics which did cause damage (were there any?) explain why
this particular situation is worthy of the court's attention.
Also, which court? By law the suit can be brought in the courts
of either the plaintiff's or defendant's legal residence or in
ANY place the libel appeared (Australia, Europe, Canada
perhaps?). By the way don't forget to have the full legal name
and address of all participants.
By now you should have had second thoughts about the whole thing.
MORAL: don't accuse some one of libel or slander unless something
more important than your ego is hurt. Don't talk about any flame
on USENET as libel unless you are serious. Otherwise it is a
waste of our time, communications bandwidth and money.
--
=Dennis L. Mumaugh
Lisle, IL ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlmstephen@obed.UUCP (10/07/87)
In article <2071@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: : In article <1985@midas.TEK.COM>, darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) writes: : > I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility : > whatsoever for any articles posted by its users. .... : : I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites : have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the : above on a public access unix system are worthless. : : Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a : publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to: .... : An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect : publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes) : the article. To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron, : "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, and not : the author; the issue of the author is secondary, and in some cases is : immaterial. I think that ESPECIALLY in the case where the author of an article is paying for access to the system that the article is posted from, then it is the AUTHOR who is the publisher. Usenet is the MEDIUM. One does not sue the news outlet that sells the newspaper, nor does one sue the printer who sticks the ink to the paper (unless the printer and publisher are the same). One basically sues whomever it was that decided the article was worth publishing. In the case of a newspaper this is, in effect, the party with the legal title 'publisher'. In the case of Usenet, it is ultimately the POSTER who is responsible (unless the poster is on a system that previews the mail). Assuming that I am correct, this would mean that sites which censor/preview the stuff that goes thru them may in fact be making themselves MORE exposed to the possibility of a libel suit, unless the articles that would otherwise go thru them also have an alternate path onto the net.
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (10/07/87)
In article <829@qiclab.pdx.com> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
<Larry claimed that Mark's posting was slanderous.
<Mark claimed that Larry's was libelous.
<
<Unfortunately, as Larry points out, Mark can sue him, but he can't sue Mark!
<Why? Because he has got no way to get an address to send the summons to!
This is false. Mark Ethan Smith's address is in the white pages of the
appropriate phone book. What more do you want?
<Therefore, Mark is _not_ responsible for any postings as he cannot be held
<accountable for them!
No more accountable than anyone else on USENet, anyway.
You see, the first problem is that it's possible that era1987@violet
is not really Mark Ethan Smith. Just like it's possible that the
person posting using the name "Larry Lippman" is not really Larry
Lippman.
If I were really thinking about suing someone for a posting, the first
step would be contacting the administrators of the system to find the
name and address associated with that username/host combination.
Should they prove reticent about releasing the information (I hope
they would - releasing information about a user to random people is
not a good thing), I would then take legal action to extract that
information from them.
In any case, suing someone for a USENet posting is probably not a good
idea. As anyone moderately familiar with Unix security and netnews can
tell you, it's easy to post netnews from someone else on your host, or
from someone on another host far away (say,
mcvax!kgbvax!kremvax!cherenkov :-). Better yet, you can convince a
host far away to accept netnews posted by a user on a third host.
<mike
--
It's been a hard day's night, Mike Meyer
And I been working like a dog. mwm@berkeley.edu
It's been a hard day's night, ucbvax!mwm
I should be sleeping like a log. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETgew@dnlunx.UUCP (Weijers G.A.H.) (10/07/87)
To make the issue of email and news even muddier: who is publishing
what? If someone in the US puts an excerpt from (for instance) Spy Catcher,
a book published by an ex-MI5 agent and banned in the UK,
on the net, and this article is forwarded to the UK, who, if
anyone, can be prosecuted? The originator (SC is legally available in the US),
the backbone site system administrator, or every SA in the UK?.
Under US or UK law?
Is the SA of a site *forwarding* a libelous article guilty of anything?
Legislation is not keeping up with new possibilities. The only practical
proposal in my view is to make the *originator* the publisher,
otherwise public access data bases might be impossible to run in the future.
I'll probably be old, gray and cranky before this issue gets sorted out.
Anonymous paper mail is still the easiest way to verbally abuse people,
whilst escaping any consequences.
NOTE: I work for a telecommunications administration, but this is my
*personal* view. I don't know the particular legal situation in the
Netherlands, but libel is not a large industry here (no millions of $$
in damages).
PS. I can't cross-post to misc.legal, not a valid group here.
--
Ge' Weijers {verbose disclaimer omitted}
PTT Dr. Neher Laboratories address change (15th of october)
Leidschendam, the Netherlands
uucp: {uunet!}mcvax!dnlunx!gew uucp: {uunet!}mcvax!hobbit!gejim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) (10/07/87)
In article <1985@midas.TEK.COM>, darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) writes: [the continuing saga of Mark Ethan Smith deleted] > > Please also notice that I did not ever and do not now advocate > the pulling of that person's account and/or USENET access. > I did however, decide that I needed a break from all of that and > have since unsubscribed to soc.women (hint, hint, Mr. Lippman). > Well, *that* obviously worked ;-)This is not a flame on Darci, just noting that you can't get away from the pseudo-self actualized screaming in soc.women. Not even by unsubscribing. > > Darci Chapman How about starting alt.flame.Mark-Ethan-Smith. Maybe then those of us who *really* don't care about MES can get a break from this silliness. Its bad enough that you can't post to soc.women without having someone tear you a new anus, we don't need that in this group. Jim Sitek Flames are welcome. Even from pseudo-self actualized screamers.
bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) (10/10/87)
But speaking of liability, just how does one PROVE that statements made on
USENET actually come from the organization or user they say they do? It
is quite easy for me to post an article to the net that would appear to
come from larry@kitty.UUCP saying that "Smith" molested little girls.
By the definitions posted by Larry, that would be libel. But how would
anyone be able to prove or disprove that Larry actually posted it?
--
Roger L. Long
FileNet Corp
{hplabs,trwrb}!felix!bytebugjtn@potomac.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (10/11/87)
Yet it is the system administrator's job to ask "Is this person simply
being outspoken or is this person being obnoxious?" First amendment
rights are not a sanction to allow just any kind of behavior.
--
John T. Nelson UUCP: rutgers!mimsy!rlgvax!sundc!potomac!jtn
trwrb!ihnp4!rlgvax!sundc!potomac!jtn
Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@ads.arpa
1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611
*OOP* *ACK*
_ /|
\'o.O'
=(___)y agrou'venagaromost cvnend@engr.uky.edu (D. V. W. James) (10/11/87)
In article <1342@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: > >Please remember one major thing. Libel and slander MUST involve >damage to one's reputation and must be monetary in nature. > >=Dennis L. Mumaugh For a libel to occur, at least four, and sometimes five, conditions must be fulfilled. These are: 1) the statement must be defamatory. That is, it must tend to hurt someone's reputation; 2) it must identify its intended victim; 3) it must be communicated, that is, it must be broadcast in such a way that at least one other person other than the victom or perpetrator hears or sees it; 4) in cases involving the mass media there is also required a proof of fault. That means a the publisher must have been either guilty of actual malice or have been negligent in publishing it; 5) in cases where actual malice cannot be proven, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the victom of the libel must also prove damages. (Overbeck and Pullen, 1985) Overbeck, Wayne and Pullen, Rick D. (1985). Major Principles of _____ __________ __ Media Law (Second Edition) New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and _____ ___ ______ _______ Winston Copyright (c) 1987 by David W. James The above is from a paper I wrote this summer on the subject of Libel and USENET. Note that damages need not be proven in all cases. -- 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 "...the net exists on good faith and a lot of hand waving." Chuq
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (10/13/87)
Hello Roger, [ This comment is only concerned with the issue of detecting faked articles ] In article <9067@felix.UUCP> bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) writes: >But speaking of liability, just how does one PROVE that statements made on >USENET actually come from the organization or user they say they do? It >is quite easy for me to post an article to the net that would appear to >come from larry@kitty.UUCP saying that "Smith" molested little girls. [munch...] > Roger L. Long Yes you could by faking the header - BUT once the forged message leaves your site it will leave a trail pointing back to you. Every site you connect to will tack on it's own part of the full distribution path and if enough people compare the results it would be simple to determine where it _didn't_ come from by seeking a common root- and in many cases it would be possible to track it back to the actual poster _if_ that site keeps logs. If you do manage to post from several places at once you might cause problems with this method but there are other methods by using article numbers that further help to make undetected forgeries harder to do... Summery: Lets say you faked a header: aa/bb/cc/userX where the path 'aa/bb/cc/userX' is valid - this does NOT mean that all people who normally receive userX will also receive your posting as if it were comming from the correct path. The only way around this is if you happened to be on one of the sole links userX uses to reach the net and if nether of those links keep logging info... Even with the growing number of MSDOS [ et. all ] machines it would be safe to assume that on average they , at some point down the path, connect to a machine that keeps logs. So, the main problem with tracking down fake postings remains on average with the effort it takes... This issue suggest that if the average person wants to detect if their articles are being faked they can suggest to all their friends to keep track of the path headers for articles they receive from them. On many systems this could be a simple as a grep of the news logs at regular intervals ... Best Regards, # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home ) # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.