From: jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk (Jim Dixon)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 06:48:52 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Are Remailers Liable for What They Remail?
Message-ID: <5464@aiki.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <199408111645.KAA07094@suod.cs.colorado.edu> Patrick Juola writes:
>
>   Perry sez:
>   UUNET, among others, considers itself to be a common carrier.
>
> My understanding is that, legally speaking, "considering [oneself]
> to be a common carrier" amounts to exactly nil -- that it requires
> a special act of some governing body to declare you to be a common
> carrier.   One might just as well consider oneself to be an
> accredited diplomat and therefore to have diplomatic immunity.

The area is a bit grey.

Quoting from other correspondence:
>	    Current case law, most notably Cubby vs. Compuserve, suggests
> that a BBS can have either publisher or common-carrier status depending on
> what content-control policies it implements.	There is precedent for this in
> other media; one important case involved fraud liability on an un-controlled
> supermarket bulletin-board (the cork kind).  No control, no liability (that
> is, the cork-board was ruled to be a common carrier).

The reply was:
> I'd be very surprised if you put two attorneys in one room and they
> agreed on to what extent common carrier protection applied to IP
> providers.  There just isn't enough legal precedence so it is an
> still uncertain area.

> We have two attorneys on staff and I've heard them talk about this in
> the same room.  ;-)

--
Jim Dixon