weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/26/86)
I would like to ask the legal experts if the following would be grounds for libel/slander or the like out in the real world. (I am aware that electronic bulletin boards are questionable as evidence.) The statements are completely false and require an extremely twisted misreading of my postings. I would like to ask the powers that be if they plan to let this garbage continue. Money is spent transmitting this stuff. And if they are grounds for libel, then this user is repeatedly using the net for illegal activity. I am directing all followups to net.news only. Message-ID: <2749@pyuxd.UUCP> >Aren't I just awful for pointing this out? Aren't I "rude"? I make >no apologies. Let Matthew Wiener tell his "side" of things, the side of >history that leaves out pogroms, ghettoization, inquisitions, holocausts, >as if they never happened. Message-ID: <2773@pyuxd.UUCP> > As Wiener, you have posted drivel of the sort "well, I was >brought up by anti-Christian Jews, and only recently have I learned of >the real goodness of Christianity", denying the importance or even the >existence of sanctioned and condoned religious persecution of your supposed >ancestors. Message-ID: <2789@pyuxd.UUCP> > Matt would say "but, gee, I learned >after renouncing Judaism and later learning about Christianity that it >wasn't bad, that history isn't the way I thought it was, that Christianity >isn't guilty of things like the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Crusades, >the Holocaust, etc. despite what everyone says". ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/27/86)
> I would like to ask the legal experts if the following would be grounds > for libel/slander or the like out in the real world. (I am aware that > electronic bulletin boards are questionable as evidence.) Well, not to ruin a good argument, but I happen to have some facts and referneces on libel sitting around (just happened to pick them up as some background reading for my work on OtherRealms). Unless other stated, all of these are references fro "The Elements of Editing: A modern Guide for editors and Journalists" which has a large sections on libel for the various print media. Defamation: An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in comtempt, or lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Libel: Published material -- text, headlines, photos, drawings, or any other representation -- meeting three conditions: (1) the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; (2) the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and (3) the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party. Slander: Spoken, as opposed to written, defamation. Defenses Truth: If truth of the defamatory material can be proved, it is not defamatory. Consent: If proof can be given that permission to publish the material was given, it is not defamatory. Fair Comment and Criticism (Opinion): so as not to inhibit critical, opinionated discourse on matters of public interest, the courts have protected what is called "fair comment and criticism". Criteria: The statement must be an evaluation, appraisal, opinon, and not a statement of fact. The facts on which the opinion was based must be stated. The opinion must be stated without malice (i.e. ill will) and it must not ascribe to sordid or corrupt motives. Right to Privacy (This is long and complicated, I'm now paraphrasing): People have the right not to have their private lives dragged through the mud in public. There are mitigating factors, the most important being the concept of a public figure -- someone who has put himself before the public must show actual malice (intent to cause slander) -- in other words, if you stand up in front of a crowd of people, you're asking for the tomatoes, but you're protected from the rocks. == Analysis == As far as the privacy issue goes, it is my feeling that anyone who spends any time posting to a net would qualify as a public figure IN THAT GROUP. Therefore, this is not a valid protection as long as the subject doesn't wander into character assasination. My opinion based on these definitions and a little common sense says that the statements are not libelous. It looks to me as if rosen and wiener are engaged in some childish namecalling, nothing more -- baseball bats at dawn is a better place to settle this than court of law. From looking at the articles excerpts (which are terribly one-sided) and glancing through the discussion shows me that Wiener has made the same sorts of comments to Rosen as well -- if they are libelous on one end, they are libelous on both. To me, they simply sound like immature ramblings, but that is a personal opinion... Frankly, as far as I know, there are NO PRECEDENTS for an electronic network like USENET. The closest cousin would probably be the newspaper, and while I think that works as a good first approximation, there are wrinkles in the electronic format that would give most judges grey hairs. Now, the above is the opinion of a lay person with an interest in the subject -- I am not trained in law. Based on my researches this looks to be reasonable -- which means that it may not have anything to do with the reality of court rulings. I'd appreciated intelligent comment from better trained people on this (keep uninformed emotionalism to yourself, please) as it affects some of the stuff I'm doing as well. Sorry to dampen a good argument -- I should know better than than to use facts. chuq -- :From catacombs of a past participle: Chuq Von Rospach chuqi%plaid@sun.ARPA FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq I used to really worry about splitting my infinitives until I realized that most people had never heard of them.
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (03/27/86)
> [Flamage and accusation of libel/slander by Matthew Weiner against > Rich Rosen, and "complaint" to "powers that be" about Rich's postings...] To be brief, the postings Mr. Weiner complains about do NOT comprise defamation, for a number of sufficient reasons, the most important of which is that they are obviously, beyond any shadow of doubt, to any conceivable reader of the newsgroup(s), OPINION. Though I am an attorney (among other things), I don't feel the need to post a discourse on the law of defamation, but I DO feel the need to defend freedom of expression in general, Usenet in specific, and Rich Rosen in particular. What irks me particularly is that Mr. Weiner has posted (by my count) at least nine articles to net.religion during the last two weeks (the expiration period on our machine), more than half of which contain flamage, accusations of bias, emotional language, and the like. Why, then, does he find it necessary to single out various paragraphs of Rich Rosen's articles (which, out of context, seem to me more puzzling than offensive) and cry foul? The reason I care enough about this to post this is that Usenet exists by the sufferance of the management of hundreds of private firms and government agencies, many of whom would be inclined to drop participation if the net became more controversial than it already is. Mr. Weiner's inaccurate allegations of defamation do nothing to improve this sitation. Whether the net or its members could be held liable for postings if in fact defamatory articles were posted is a issue for another time; I'd advise those interested to read the material presented at the January 1985 Usenix conference by the noted attorney Susan Nycum and some of the research done by Lauren Weinstein with regard to the Stargate project. I do not presume to give legal advice to Mr. Weiner, and if he continues to feel be has been defamed (after the legal research he should have done in the first place) I urge him to seek counsel. My belief, however, is that his remedy is to continue to publish his opinions in the appropriate newsgroups (NOT net.news!) or else leave the net if he considers the tone of discourse offensive. Michael C. Berch attorney, consultant, and news administrator ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/28/86)
In article <20525@styx.UUCP>: >What irks me particularly is that Mr. Wiener has posted (by my count) >at least nine articles to net.religion during the last two weeks (the >expiration period on our machine), more than half of which contain >flamage, accusations of bias, emotional language, and the like. >Why, then, does he find it necessary to single out various paragraphs >of Rich Rosen's articles (which, out of context, seem to me more puzzling >than offensive) and cry foul? Did I ever accuse anyone of denying pogroms, holocausts, etc.? I'm talking degree here. I gave references so that the matter could be pursued. Rich Rosen, you will notice, does not give references. (There were none in the messages I quoted from.) >The reason I care enough about this to post this is that Usenet exists >by the sufferance of the management of hundreds of private firms and >government agencies, many of whom would be inclined to drop >participation if the net became more controversial than it already is. >Mr. Weiner's inaccurate allegations of defamation do nothing to >improve this sitation. I do not think your description above is accurate, as I was *asking* would they count as defamation. I agree that Usenet exists at the sufference you list, and when people like Rich Rosen post repeatedly as they do, the net suffers. I will defend my postings if you wish, I make retractions and apologies when I go too far, I try to be fair whenever possible. I keep in mind the community whenever I post; I make mistakes and admit to them. Try reading Rich Rosen for a few months and see if you would say the same thing about him. >I do not presume to give legal advice to Mr. Wiener, and if he >continues to feel be has been defamed (after the legal research >he should have done in the first place) Again, I was *asking*. Why do you think we have newsgroups in the first place? > I urge him to seek counsel. >My belief, however, is that his remedy is to continue to publish his >opinions in the appropriate newsgroups (NOT net.news!) or else leave >the net if he considers the tone of discourse offensive. Yes, net.news! Where else do you discuss what to do about newsgroups? Why should people be forced to leave newsgroups because of repeated and inaccurate and unsupported charges against them? I consider that a very serious question, most appropriate for net.news. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720