1993-03-19 - Re: You Aren’t [I’m Not]

Header Data

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
To: hughes@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hughes)
Message Hash: 9ab446235afe3e784a2246db0f1a139ed8809ac6f3ff9584c5d188da486f06b9
Message ID: <199303190313.AA15580@eff.org>
Reply To: <9303090316.AA17160@soda.berkeley.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-19 03:16:33 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 19:16:33 PST

Raw message

From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 19:16:33 PST
To: hughes@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hughes)
Subject: Re: You Aren't [I'm Not]
In-Reply-To: <9303090316.AA17160@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <199303190313.AA15580@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Eric Hughes writes:

> Last night I spoke with Mike Godwin of the EFF about the issue of
> anonymous libel.  Mike is not on the list, and I've copied him on this
> message.  Mike knows more about electronic speech issues than pretty
> much anyone else.  Here is my remembrance about what he said:
><text deleted> 
> 2. An anonymous remailer is not liable.  In order to be liable for the
> libellous speech, the operator of the remailer would have to have
> prior knowledge that the speech was libellous.  Since the operation of
> the remailer is fully automated, prior knowledge is impossible.

I'd modify that second point slightly--specifically, I'd say that an
anonymous remailer *probably* is not liable. There's never been a case
of this sort, but current American libel law suggests that the remailer
would not be liable.