lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (11/12/84)
There are a number of issues to consider. All of them are cloudy. First of all, for problems to occur, three significant events must transpire: 1) Something "illegal" must be distributed. 2) Somebody concerned about the legal issue must find out about (1). 3) The entity in (2) takes legal action against (some other) entity. By a strict interpretation of law, even satellite netnews most likely might not be considered to be broadcasting in the normal sense, since it would not be "generally available to the public." That is, decoders for the material could not be bought at Radio Shack--you'd have to sign up with some entity to get decoders, current decryption keys, etc. In this sense, we are talking about a very large point-to-point data communications network, not a conventional broadcast system. Common carrier rules imply that if you do any screening of material you become responsible for the material transmitted in some manner. This would imply that you wouldn't want to screen, except that the laws are hazy, resulting in: 1) No satellite facility is going to give permission for data transmission over their facilities unless data IS screened. 2) Most available bandwidth, and most of the usefulness of a satellite system, would be wasted if the 75% (+?) of mostly repeitious and generally useless material in many newsgroups were allowed to be transmitted. (Personal opinion) 3) Even if you DIDN'T screen materials, you could STILL get sued (anyone can sue you for anything, after all) if something is transmitted that someone doesn't "like." They might not win in the long run, but they can still cause a lot of hassle. Of course, if you *did* screen and made sure that "illegal" material didn't get through, then they have nothing to sue you over in any case! It should also be noted that even in our current network, virtually every net entity is vulnerable to suit regarding any message that passes through their facilities. People sending messages, editing digests, etc. are all theoretically vulnerable--it just hasn't happened to date. Presumably larger entities are more vulnerable simply because they would be perceived to have more money in such a situation. In other words, all life is dangerous. In my estimation, not screening materials in a "broadcast" system makes you vulnerable to someone getting upset over some random message, and suing you regardless of the issues of common carrier law. On the other hand, if screening is performed, and done well, then the whole issue should theoretically never come up, and the entity would be in much the same position as that of a newspaper or magazine publisher/distributer. --Lauren--