lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA (05/25/84)
If there's going to be a big discussion of "freedom of speech" over this BBS issue, then PLEASE move the discussion over to POLI-SCI and off of CPM and MICRO. I also doubt that we need to see the same messages five times in both lists. It's amusing that so many people have seen fit to comment on this subject, but I haven't seen anyone mention what the offending message was all about! Well, it apparently had to do with the posting of illicit access codes for one of the "alternate" long distance telephone companies. This is an illegal act and clearly should be. It isn't a question of "freedom of speech," it's a question of fraud and theft. The only interesting legal question here concerns the responsibility of the owner of the BBS itself. It seems fairly self-evident that some degree of responsibility is necessary, otherwise these systems could provide convenient meeting-grounds for all sorts of illegal operations, all under the guise of dialup anonymity. As usual, a few bad apples are spoiling the public access computer system world just as they ruin so many other aspects of our society. I'm certainly not suggesting that the owners of BBS systems be subject to felony prosecutions (providing that they truly were unaware of the offending messages) but it seems that SOME level of responsibility must be maintained. If this whole event is over the posting of a single message that the BBS sysop really didn't know anything about, then the level of legal action taken is clearly out of line -- it would have been better for the authorities to work WITH the sysop to locate the person who posted the message. On the other hand, there have been BBS's which ENCOURAGED or at least openly tolerated such messages as a matter of policy, and they should certainly be subject to legal penalties. The problem in this particular case may have been "simple" overreaction by some specific authorities, who will probably back down if this was truly a one-time event and didn't represent the ongoing "policy" of the BBS. Can you imagine what would happen to a company which made a policy of KNOWINGLY allowing the posting of illegal credit card numbers on the bulletin board of their hallway for the use of their employees? Can we agree that this company would be liable for some form of prosecution? I think that there is a strong analogy between this situation and the BBS public message board situation. The legal question should revolve around the continuing policy of these boards, not around single, isolated events. I don't claim to have an exact legal formula for dealing with this issue, but often it is best to look to the way we deal with the same sorts of problems in a non-computerized environment for some hints. --Lauren--