geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (04/22/87)
In article <9405@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@indian.dec.com writes:
I'm not actually going to do any quoting, because frankly I don't have the
faintest idea which postings are and are not Ken's. Nor do I care; Gene
Spafford's analysis of the value of that newsgroup is right on target.
Since several people have made accusations of illegal behavior on the
part of the system administrator who pulled Foothead's account, though,
I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime.
So is slander. And, given how busy our friendly legislators tend to be,
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a separate specific statute dealing
with forgers who masquerade as another person with the deliberate intention
of slandering that person.
Personally, I'd like to see enough evidence collected to have a prosecution.
The net used to be a friendly (if name-calling) place. This kind of slimy
behavior is not my idea of an advancement. And nobody who fits my definition
of the word "ethical" would have ever pulled a stunt like that and then
tried to blame somebody else. It stops being a joke when you fail to take
responsibility.
--
Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com {hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoffkre@munnari.UUCP (04/23/87)
In article <655@desint.UUCP>, geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: > I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime. yes. > So is slander. Not unless the US has even more wierd laws than I thought. Slander is a tort. kre
dnelson@thumper.UUCP (04/23/87)
In article <> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >Personally, I'd like to see enough evidence collected to have a prosecution. >The net used to be a friendly (if name-calling) place. This kind of slimy >behavior is not my idea of an advancement. And nobody who fits my definition >of the word "ethical" would have ever pulled a stunt like that and then >tried to blame somebody else. It stops being a joke when you fail to take >responsibility. Well, for what it's worth, I think the whole thing is rather amusing considering the faked articles were a pretty good parody of Ken. I wonder if he actually disagrees with any of the bogus articles ;-). keep schlepping, --cosmique muffin (dorothy) ...!allegra!moss!thumper!dnelson
cjdb@sphinx.UUCP (04/24/87)
In article <655@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >[...] >Nor do I care; Gene >Spafford's analysis of the value of that newsgroup is right on target. > Both sets of remarks (Gene Spafford's and the above) are an insult to the majority of subscribers to talk.religion.misc. That a few people are responsible for much (worthless) volume does not mean that others (who have to wade through the trash to follow a subject line of interest to them) have not something of value to communicate. Clearly, neither of you has waded through the trash for any length of time, nor perhaps do you care to. Hence the hasty and superficial opinions. -- UUCP: !ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cjdb Bitnet: lib.cb@chip.UChicago or PMRCJDB@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet Mailnet: lib.cb@UChicago Internet: lib.cb%UChicago.Bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.-edu
mark@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn) (04/25/87)
In article <1577@munnari.oz> kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes: >In article <655@desint.UUCP>, geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >> I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime. >> So is slander. > >Not unless the US has even more wierd laws than I thought. [...] In the US, slander and defamation of character are both against the law. newspapers and other publishers get sued for it every day. Think about it for a second. If someone was running around saying that Robert Elz is a child molester :-), you would want some sort of legal recourse to stop the perpetrator of that awful statement. Especially if that person was able to obtain some kind of rapport with the media. You may not be is such a position that anybody would try to do this to you, but many public figures have to wary of such 'rumors' that might ruin their career. -- Mark H. Colburn UUCP: ihnp4!meccts!ems!mark, mark@ems.uucp EMS/McGraw-Hill AT&T: (612) 829-8200 Copyright (C) 1987 Mark H. Colburn Redistribution allowed only if recipients may redistribute.
kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) (04/26/87)
In article <655@desint.UUCP>, geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: > I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime. > So is slander. I replied that forgery is a crime, but that slander is merely a tort. In article <272@ems.UUCP>, mark@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn) writes: > In the US, slander and defamation of character are both > against the law. newspapers and other publishers get > sued for it every day. Of course, that's what a tort is. Torts are where someone takes you to court, and the court makes you pay money, or perhaps grants an injunction against you to stop some action (or several other remedies). Crimes are where the state (or King, or whatever) takes you to court, and the court imprisons you, or lops off your head, or whatever happens to be appropriate (maybe just makes you pay money). The significant difference is that if you comit a crime, you end up with a criminal record, that is used against you in all kinds of ways that you never suspected it would be. Comit a tort, pay your damages, and its forgotten. Robert Elz kre@munnari.oz
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (04/26/87)
In article <272@ems.UUCP> mark@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn) writes: >In article <1577@munnari.oz> kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes: >>In article <655@desint.UUCP>, geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >>> I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime. >>> So is slander. >> >>Not unless the US has even more wierd laws than I thought. [...] > > In the US, slander and defamation of character are both > against the law. newspapers and other publishers get > sued for it every day. > Which is exactly the point Robert Elz was making. To finish his quote: >Not unless the US has even more wierd laws than I thought. Slander >is a tort. Tort law is usually based on precendents or case law. Criminal Law is usually based on Statute law, or Laws that are passed by the state. Torts are significant in that they deal with a specific type of problem, vis a vis to compensate victims of tortious activities, not to punish the wrongdoers. Punishment is left to Criminal Law where applicable. For example Slander and Libel are both Torts. Assault and Battery is a Tort and a Criminal act. Drunken driving is (usually) a criminal act. The practical difference is that if you perform a criminal act the state prosecutes you, if you perform a tort the victim must sue you, the state has nothing to do with it unless it is also a criminal act. Given the preceding examples, you can be sued for Slander, Libel or Assault and Battery. You can be prosecuted by the State for Assault and Battery or Drunken driving. More specifically, the tort of defamation takes two forms: libel is written defamation and slander is spoken defamation. It conists of a statement which causes unjustified injury to the reputation of another person. The defamation requires publication, "communication of the disparaging statement to someone other than the person defamed". A complete defence against a charge of defamation is that the alleged defamatory statements are true. -- Stuart Lynne ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
ejp@ausmelb.OZ (Esmond Pitt) (04/27/87)
In article <1577@munnari.oz> kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes: >In article <655@desint.UUCP>, geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >> I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime. > >yes. Surely there must be an intention to profit? -- Esmond Pitt, Austec International Ltd (ejp@ausmelb.oz) (...!seismo!munnari!ausmelb.oz!ejp,ejp%ausmelb.oz.au@SEISMO.CSS.GOV) D
rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Wombat) (04/28/87)
In article <655@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >Since several people have made accusations of illegal behavior on the >part of the system administrator who pulled Foothead's account, though, >I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime. >So is slander. The problem is that there is no legalistic approach to this. Forgery (of certain items) is a crime; I sincerely doubt that Usenet articles number among those items, even by the broadest definitions. Slander is difficult to prove due to the numerous defenses possible. However, an even simpler defense exists: the accused can claim that he or she was not the one using the account at the time the alleged offense took place. Unless a witness observed the accused actually committing the offense, then only circumstantial evidence exists---and given the ease with which that evidence may be created and destroyed by anyone with the requisite knowledge, it is very unlikely that a conviction would result. [I am not a lawyer.] Given the current status of the software (news, notes, uucp) and the state of the network at large, I would say that any and all accusations of this nature would be difficult, if not impossible, to conclusively prove. Perhaps it would be better to avoid the legal quagmire and rely on the judgement of the site administrators involved--though that too has its drawbacks. -- Rich Kulawiec, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk PUCC News Administrator
ejp@ausmelb.UUCP (04/28/87)
In article <272@ems.UUCP> mark@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn) writes: >In article <1577@munnari.oz> kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes: >>In article <655@desint.UUCP>, geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >>> I think it's also worth pointing out that forgery is definitely a crime. >>> So is slander. >> >>Not unless the US has even more wierd laws than I thought. [...] > > In the US, slander and defamation of character are both > against the law. newspapers and other publishers get > sued for it every day. Yes but you don't get sued for committing a crime, you get prosecuted. ---- ---------- You get sued for civil matters such as slanders, debt, divorce etc. Debt, marriage and desertion aren't crimes either. kre was referring to the difference b/w the civil and criminal codes. It's an important point. -- Esmond Pitt, Austec International Ltd ...!seismo!munnari!ausmelb.oz!ejp,ejp@ausmelb.oz.au D