gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (01/10/91)
In article <1991Jan09.175609.6303@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Assume serious legal action begins. It has to look for a target. There >are no targets. Perhaps it goes away frustrated, but all it takes is one >plaintiff not willing to go away. > >Targets include uunet and the NSF to begin with. Or some big sites. > >Problem is that at many sites all it would take is a whiff of a lawsuit to >have the site removed from the net by admins who are unaware of usenet or >uncomfortable with it. "Who needs trouble?" Ok, Brad has neatly summarized the crux of the real problem here. I have a suggestion, a small proposal for 1) a Usenet local admin policy and 2) a law to back it up. What I'm suggesting is this: We create an administrative policy guide for News admins. Simply; it is not the responsibility of a news site to check any information about any incoming news; however, if the site admin is notified that an article at that site is illegal/libelous/etc, it is that site's responsibility to as soon as reasonable locally cancel it. Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not know to be illegal in some way. Suggestions? Flamage? I'm willing to send _my_ congresspeople a horde of letters... are you, for the long-term good of Usenet and other computer systems. == George William Herbert == * UNIX ate my last .sig, Waiting for Plan 9! * == JOAT for Hire: Anything, == ######### I do Naval Architecture, ########## == + Anywhere, at my price. + == # Spacecraft Design, UNIX Systems Consulting # == + gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu + == # RPG writing/development, and lots of other # == + ucbvax!ocf!gwh + == ## random stuff, of course. I'm a JOAT 8-) ##
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (01/11/91)
The ACLU handbook on the rights of authors and artists offers this information: "Who can sued in a libel or privacy case? The original writer or creator is always directly answerable, much as the driver of a delivery truck is answerable for any accident. The employer of the writer, if any, is also answerable, like the employer of a driver. The publisher/broadcaster of the work may also be answerable, even if the writer is a free-lance contributor; and individual editors, producers, and collaborators who participate in the creation of a work may also be held answerable [187]. It occasionally happens that a plaintiff sues the printer of a work, its distributor and/or retailer, even the advertisers who have sponsored it. However, because of the Supreme Court's decision in the Getz case requiring plaintiffs to prove that libelous statements have been published with fault on the part of the defendant, it seems unlikely that tangential defendants will be found liable [188]. ------ [187] For a complex but important recent discussion of the potential defamation liability of the persons and entities in the publishing process -- original newspaper publishers vs. paperback (re)publishers, original reports vs. paperback editor, etc -- see Karaduman v. Newsday, 51 N.Y.2d 531 (1980) [188] See, e.g., Maynard v. Port Publications, Inc., 98 Wis.2d 555, 297, N.W.2d 500(1980] ------- " I think a Usenet BBS owner is more like a conventional printer or distributor than like a conventional publisher. Like a [conventional] printer and distributor, the BBS owner doesn't necessarily read the material, but he or she knows where the material comes from. Or to use Brad Templeton's terminology, conventional printing and distribution is a unmonitored, nonanonymous system. [The quote is from _The Rights of Authors and Artists: Comprehensive and Up-to-Date, A Basic Guide to the Legal Rights of Authors and Artists_ (An American Civil Liberties Union Handbook), 1983, by Kenneth P. Norwick & Jerry Simon Chasen with Henry R. Kaufman] -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Fourth Amendment (War-on-Drugs version): The right of the people to be secure in their persons shall not be violated but upon probable cause *or for random urine tests*
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) (01/11/91)
In article <40305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > What I'm suggesting is this: We create an administrative policy guide > for News admins. Simply; it is not the responsibility of a news site to check > any information about any incoming news; however, if the site admin is notified > that an article at that site is illegal/libelous/etc, it is that site's > responsibility to as soon as reasonable locally cancel it. > Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a > law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal > responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not > know to be illegal in some way. George, Usenet is an international network. Brad Templeton, who raised this issue, is a Canadian. The US congress has jurisdiction of only a very limited part of the worldwide network. Different countries have different laws. Most western democracies besides the US have limits on racist speech; in many cases these laws were put on the books to help keep the Nazis and Fascists from rising again. This has caused problems in the past. Anyone remember Don Black? He identified himself as an "identity Christian" -- this is a hate group that claims Jesus Christ was really of Teutonic stock and had nothing to do with the Jews, and that denies that the Holocaust ever took place. Many of his postings explicitly violated the laws of many European countries -- they were often extremely anti-Semitic (I am not talking anti-Israeli; I am talking about explicit pro-Nazi stuff). For the early part of his Usenet career, net.politics went to Europe. While one of the reasons for cutting the transmission was cost, several system administrators cited laws against "hate literature" as a reason as well. Even if this weren't a problem, getting the attention of Congress to the legal status of Usenet is likely to backfire. Can you imagine what Jesse Helms will do when alt.sex.bondage is brought to his attention? Or even soc.motss? I'm afraid that any attempt to "fix" the ambiguous legal situation will only make the problems worse, and that the best solutions are to treat problem articles on a case-by-case basis. Here are some suggested responses to various possibilities; they are only suggestions based on my seven years or so around here: Example 1: someone posts a stolen credit card number on the net. Action: any system administrator who sees it should immediately forge a cancel message, and alert news.admin and other appropriate channels so it is removed wherever possible. Example 2: someone posts proprietary or licensed software on the net. This has happened before. ONCE IT HAS BEEN MADE CERTAIN THAT THE POSTING WAS ILLEGAL, procedure #1 should be followed. (In one of the more notorious occurrences of this, Reed College removed itself from the net completely after a student there illegally posted source code). In addition, a news.announce.important message should alert people at sites where cancel messages may not have reached that the indicated software is illegal and should be deleted. Software companies are familiar enough with how networks operate that I anticipate no trouble from them is this procedure is followed thoroughly. Example 3: "hate literature" type postings (extremely vile and racist postings that may be illegal in some countries) In the US, let them stand; flame the hell out of the jerk that sent them. In the past, it's often turned out that for the really sickening postings, the real sender is not the person in the From: line and that person is an innocent victim of a forged posting. If system administrators in other countries have a concern, they can decide on their own to cancel the articles: control messages should be limited in distribution to specific countries (this works best in those areas where the network is more closely organized and administered). The net as a whole can be made aware of problems in news.admin. Example 4: allegations of libel/slander. 99 times out of a hundred, this is just a round of namecalling that's gotten out of hand -- I prefer to work on soothing the ill feelings and correcting any errors than to treat it as a legal issue. There was only one semi-serious threat of a suit that I recall -- the idea was that harrassment of women on the net was so severe that companies that carry the net in the US could be sued under the equal employment opportunity/affirmative action rules, for providing conditions that discriminate against women. The person in question was the infamous Mark Ethan Smith. Nothing ever came of it, partly because comp.society.women was approved (oh, what a glorious war that one was). I think that in such cases we should look for some kind of face-saving compromise for all parties; usually the person making the noise does have a legitimate grievance but has lost all sense of proportion. As someone said, "after all, it's only ones and zeros..." Some purists say that no one should ever post forged cancel messages under any conditions. Given that the US government has seized people's computers and threatened them with jail because actions #1 or #2 above were done to their BBSes, can you really expect system administrators and owners from taking that kind of risk? -- Joe Buck jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/11/91)
I must agree that we must seek nothing specific for USENET. Let the net grow and become important. Then when the lawmakers come, they will have to codify what's there instead of trying to change it to something else. The creation of a new class of information distributor, halfway between common carrier/enhanced service provider and publisher, to fit the BBS and BBS network world is something that we're almost ready for, but no great need to rush it. Until they start bringing out their goons. When the goons come, it is too late for those they attack, but far from too late for the rest. Instead, the goons are (as they have been in the case of the formation of the EFF) the instigation of a proper effort on our part. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dutcher@seas.gwu.edu (Sylvia Dutcher) (01/11/91)
In article <40305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: > Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a >law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal >responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not Phil Gagner, my husband who's a lawyer and computer scientist, comments: When Congress passes a statute, it defines narrowly the scope of the law in that area. I do not believe that we have enough experience with computer communication systems to draft a good law. Check out the proposed computer virus law pending in Congress for a really poorly drafted statute, based on a lack of technical understanding of the consequences of the law. Probably better to let the courts, with their strong tendency to protect 1st Amendment values, wrestle with the problem. Congressional "protection" of an activity is sometimes the kiss of death.
mikeh@microme.uucp (Michael L. Hasenfratz) (01/12/91)
efdca
walter@sumax.seattleu.edu (walter) (01/13/91)
The following is a quote from a message posted on 1-10-91 RE: "Anonymous postings" by George William Herbert in a discussion concerning liability of news administrators at USENET sites. I think George offers a solution here that doesn't actually address what Brad was referring to. >>Assume serious legal action begins. It has to look for a target. >>There are no targets. Perhaps it goes away frustrated, but all it >>takes is one plaintiff not willing to go away. >> >>Targets include uunet and the NSF to begin with. Or some big sites. >> >>Problem is that at many sites all it would take is a whiff of a >>lawsuit to have the site removed from the net by admins who are unaware >>of usenet or uncomfortable with it. "Who needs trouble?" > >Ok, Brad has neatly summarized the crux of the real problem here. I >have a >suggestion, a small proposal for 1) a Usenet local admin policy >and >2) a law to back it up. > >What I'm suggesting is this: We create an administrative policy guide >for News admins. Simply; it is not the responsibility of a news site to >check any information about any incoming news; however, if the site >admin is notified that an article at that site is illegal/libelous/etc, >it is that site's responsibility to as soon as reasonable locally cancel >it. > >Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a >law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from >legal responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that >they did not >know to be illegal in some way. It is my perception that SOMEONE will always be the target until American society itself changes. Whether we like it or not, we live in litigious times. When someone does something we don't like, we are apt to seek out and assign blame. If we are personally impacted, we seek out and assign blame with the greatest of vigor. (i.e. in cases where potentially libelous statements are issued) If you absolve site administrators of responsibility for information that is libelous (or otherwise illegal) as long as they are personally unaware the information exists or that it is illegal, you will most likely find it necessary to assign responsibility to some OTHER person or organization. With anonymous postings, the problem is enhanced. Who's to blame? If no one can be blamed, how can the alleged injured/libeled party gain redress? Maybe, in the interest of fostering free speech, Congress should pass an ACT exempting the NET from libel laws. How realistic would we be to expect this to happen in the near future? If one feels they've been damaged, they wish and petition for legal remedy. Since the concept of no fault libel does not yet exist in the U.S., (granted, we cut some slack where public figures are concerned) you and your representatives in Congress would be fighting a strong lobby --- not the least of which would be a bevy of lawyers who consider libel litigation as their bread & butter. Libel, of course, is just one of several arenas where litigation can impact USENET or ANY public computer telecommunications NET. So, who or what shall we blame -- OR -- how do we change what seems inherent in human nature? In the process of pushing the sort of legislation you're interested in through Congress, you'll have to answer one or both of those questions. Then there is the matter of implementing your answers. I wish you luck in this project. Color me pessimistic in the short term, however. Walter Scott
wrs@apple.com (Walter Smith) (01/13/91)
In article <10129@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes: > ...getting the attention of Congress to the > legal status of Usenet is likely to backfire... > > There was only one semi-serious threat of a suit that I recall -- > the idea was that harrassment of women on the net was so severe that > companies that carry the net in the US could be sued under the > equal employment opportunity/affirmative action rules, for providing > conditions that discriminate against women. Interesting anecdote: The entire alt.sex hierarchy was removed from internal machines here at Apple because of fear of lawsuits under California's sexual harassment law. Several of the messages in the ensuing uproar said that attempts to change this policy by calling Usenet to the attention of the Apple legal department were likely to backfire. (See, even *we're* scared of our legal department! :-) Getting the "Establishment" to understand the potential of computer networks will have to be a gentle, gradual process to avoid reflexive panic reactions. - Walt -- Walter Smith wrs@apple.com, apple!wrs Apple Computer, Inc. (408) 974-5892 My corporation disavows any knowledge of my activities on the network.
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (01/13/91)
Good point, Wally, about gradual accommodation of the public to the potential of computer networks. But why is that? Obviously, the public has been primed to react negatively. And keeps getting negative reinforcement from law enforcement and corporate security types, not to mention the moralists who are active on every cultural front. This is going to take as long as the Mideast to resolve... have courage. Bob Jacobson
mcbride@rust.zso.dec.com (Melinda McBride) (01/13/91)
In article <11705@goofy.Apple.COM> wrs@apple.com (Walter Smith) writes: > >Interesting anecdote: The entire alt.sex hierarchy was removed from >internal machines here at Apple because of fear of lawsuits under >California's sexual harassment law. At my site, management decided to remove the entire alt hierarchy because of concerns about liabilty under anti-harassment laws. And our site manager made the same threat to people who complained--if we weren't careful, we might lose even more access to USENET (and our own internal VAX NOTES conferences that are not directly work related). It scares me that even computer companies such as Digital and Apple, who should know better, feel they must take such a heavy-handed approach to controlling access to information. Melinda McBride Open Systems Publishing Tools Group decwrl!rust!mcbride DECwest Engineering (206)865-8705 Digital Equipment Corporation 14475 NE 24th St. Bellevue, WA 98007
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/14/91)
Obviously anyone can sue anytime, let's get that out of the way...
But I'm curious about the (legal) wisdom of companies like DEC and
Apple removing certain hierarchies such as alt.sex.
It would seem to me that at that point they are admitting an editorial
function and would therefore leave themselves much more open to
(successful) litigation.
They have now created the evidence that they take responsibility for
the content of USENET. If I were considering filing a suit based on
some posting I would take glee at this admission. They've admitted
they're liable, now I would only have to argue that they were
negligent in performing that function.
Is it possible that the legal depts in these companies have allowed
their prudishness cloud their judgement?
Or, as is much more likely, has middle management just found a
bullshit excuse to enforce their own morality?
Compare this thread with the thread in alt.activism regarding
university campus censorship and the claim that these sort of
"legal fears" are often used just to manipulate policy.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDkadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (01/14/91)
In <BZS.91Jan13110941@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >Obviously anyone can sue anytime, let's get that out of the way... >But I'm curious about the (legal) wisdom of companies like DEC and >Apple removing certain hierarchies such as alt.sex. [...] Here is what the ACLU's "Rights of Women" handbook says: [aside: the book was published in 1983 and so may be out-of-date] 'Several federal courts have ruled that [...] different treatment based on sex is a form of employment discrimination forbidden by Title VII. "Sexy" pictures and lewd comments also may amount to sex discrimination on the job if they create a work environment which is hostile and offensive to the woman worker. [...] One of the best definitions of sexual harassment is one proposed by the National Orgainzation for Women and the Working Women United Institute: Sexual harassment is any repeated or unwanted verbal or physical sexual advances, sexually explicit derogatory statements, or sexually discriminatory remarks made my someone in the workplace which is offensive or objectionable to the recipient or which causes the recipient discomfort or humiliation or which interfers with the recipient's job performance. [...] Unwanted touching, sexual comments and innuendo, and offensive displays of "sexy" pictures or cartoons may also be sexual harassment. In 1980 the EEOC passed guidelines[41] which defined sexual harassment by focusing more specifically on the required impact on a worker's job. Under the guidelines, in order to establish a violation of Title Vii, you mush show one of three things: [...] (3) that the harasssment itself is intended to or does interfere with your work or creates "an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment," whether or not there is any other unfavorable job action. ----- Note: The ACLU handbook is by Susan Deller Ross and Ann Barcher. ============================== IMHO, merely subscribing and reading the alt.* newsgroups is not sexual harassment. However, displaying "sexy" notes that a coworker finds offensive is harassment (and quite rude). For example, taking a note that someone finds offensive and making it the message of the day, or posting it to the local general newsgroup, or e-mailing it to the offendable person, or reading it loudly, or printing it out and pinning it up, etc. are examples of harassment. Note that such actions are harassment regardless of were the material comes from. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/14/91)
>IMHO, merely subscribing and reading the alt.* newsgroups is not >sexual harassment. However, displaying "sexy" notes that a coworker >finds offensive is harassment (and quite rude). For example, taking a >note that someone finds offensive and making it the message of the >day, or posting it to the local general newsgroup, or e-mailing it to >the offendable person, or reading it loudly, or printing it out and >pinning it up, etc. are examples of harassment. Note that such >actions are harassment regardless of were the material comes from. >-- >Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Yes, I'm comfortable enough with that since the implication is that an employee took a specific action (msg of the day, re-posting) and it's that specific action which is being questioned, not the mere existence or availability of the materiels. It's sort of like saying owning a baseball bat is fine, but hitting other employees with them is unacceptable. The problems arise when someone outlaws baseball bats on the possibility that someone might hit someone else. It is precisely that claim to read another's intent that gets our rights into trouble. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) (01/15/91)
On 10 Jan 91, gwh@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) G> In article <> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Problem is that at many sites all it would take is a whiff of a lawsuit to >have the site removed from the net by admins who are unaware of usenet or >uncomfortable with it. "Who needs trouble?" G> Ok, Brad has neatly summarized the crux of the real problem here. I have a G> suggestion, a small proposal for 1) a Usenet local admin policy and G> 2) a law to back it up. 1) Enforced by what mechanism? 2) The same. G> [...] G> however, if the site admin is notified G> that an article at that site is illegal/libelous/etc, it is that site's G> responsibility to as soon as reasonable locally cancel it. Here the qustion of what libel is arises. Last I heard, it takes a judge and a jury to do that on a case-by-case basis. There are few standards and precedents to go by. What seems libelous to one man is criticism/commentary to another. Case in point: Falwell vs. Larry Flynt Publications, in which Falwell attempted to claim libel/emotional trauma after a (IMHO damn funny) full-page critical 'ad' appeared in _Hustler_. He was defeated resoundingly. G> Supporting this, we mount a drive to get the US Congress to approve a G> law that supports this: basically, absolving any computer owner from legal G> responsibility for an article that they did not origionate that they did not G> know to be illegal in some way. Such a bill will be promptly defeated by the lawyers in Congress and the lobbyists for every legal orginization from here to Calcutta. You forget how these folks make their money: as a percentage of the cash awards they win for their clients. The more the settlement/award, the richer they get. Joe Newsposter is piss-poor. His organization or school or the site that is fingered as a prime distributer of the offending article is not. You don't sue poor people. You sue rich insurance companies and businesses. The rich companies then shaft their customers for the costs. Just ask any insurance company that sell malpractice or auto insurance. G> Suggestions? Flamage? I'm willing to send _my_ congresspeople a horde G> of letters... are you, for the long-term good of Usenet and other computer G> systems. The long-term good of Usenet is to keep as low a profile as possible. -- Cerebus <cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu> "The methods which you propose would result in a recognizable USENET organization; this would only make a beter target to sue."
bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi) (01/16/91)
In article <11705@goofy.Apple.COM> wrs@apple.com (Walter Smith) writes: >In article <10129@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe >Buck) writes: >> ...getting the attention of Congress to the >> legal status of Usenet is likely to backfire... >> >> There was only one semi-serious threat of a suit that I recall -- >> the idea was that harrassment of women on the net was so severe that >> companies that carry the net in the US could be sued under the >> equal employment opportunity/affirmative action rules, for providing >> conditions that discriminate against women. > >Interesting anecdote: The entire alt.sex hierarchy was removed from >internal machines here at Apple because of fear of lawsuits under >California's sexual harassment law. Several of the messages in the >ensuing uproar said that attempts to change this policy by calling Usenet >to the attention of the Apple legal department were likely to backfire. >(See, even *we're* scared of our legal department! :-) Getting the >"Establishment" to understand the potential of computer networks will have >to be a gentle, gradual process to avoid reflexive panic reactions. > >- Walt Perhaps off the subject, but the removal of alt.sex* is likely to be extremely counter-productive, if the goal of such removal is to keep potentially "harassing" material off the net. Why were groupd like alt.sex created in teh first place? To give the perverts (myself included) a place to hang out? Only indirectly. According to the story I've heard, groups like alt.sex, and alt.drugs, and rec.pyrotechnics are there so people interested in some of the more perverse aspects of sci.bio or sci.chem, etc. will have a place to talk about it, and leave those who deal with biology or chemistry for a living with a newsgroup with a relatively high signal to noise ratio. All the removal of such groups is going to do is undo the benefits of their creation. And your "sensitive" types who read rec.pets are going to have to worry about those who miss alt.sex.bestiality. >-- >Walter Smith wrs@apple.com, apple!wrs >Apple Computer, Inc. (408) 974-5892 >My corporation disavows any knowledge of my activities on the network. -rj -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjan Bagchi - At Large. Well Kinda. | what kind of person bagchi@[eecs | would want to count syllables caen, | just to write haiku? math.lsa].umich.edu | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------