From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 11:19:38 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Pseudo-law on the list and libel
In-Reply-To: <199611070327.VAA10208@einstein>
Message-ID: <v03007800aea7c8fe63ab@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



This is not a comment on the Vulis-Gilmore issue, about which much too much
has already been posted here. But I believe Jim Choate is quite wrong about
a point he makes:

At 9:27 PM -0600 11/6/96, Jim Choate wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>There is one important legal aspect which the operator of the Cypherpunks
>mailing list has opened themselves up for with this action. In short they
>have now opened themselves up for defamation and liable suites by imposing
>an editorial policy on the contents of this list (1).
>
>This opens up the potential, for example, for Tim May to sue the operator of
>the Cypherpunks mailing list now for posts from users (even anonymous ones)
>which defame or otherwise liable his character, reputation, or ability to
>pursue income in his chosen field. In short the operators of the list
>becomes publishers and distributors of the material. It is the legal
>difference between a bookstore and a book publisher.

So, if a bookstore ejects a drunken lout who is disturbing the other
patrons, is the bookstore suddenly reclassfied as a book publisher? By your
logic, you seem to think so.

So, if I have a party at my house and limit who I invite, or eject someone
who is misbehaving (insulting my other guests, barfing on the floor,
smoking when I tell him not to, whatever), you are saying that I "open
myself up for libel suits" by other guests who don't like the things they
hear from others at my party?

So, anyone who exercises ownership rights to his property suddenly becomes
legally responsible for the alleged misdeeds of anyone visiting his house?

Could you cite some cases supporting your point of view?

(I can think of some peripherally-related cases, such as cases where a bar
has been held liable (note: "libel" is not the same as "liable") for
serving too many drinks to someone already drunk. I happen to disagree with
this outcome, strongly. However, it is far from establishing that a bar
which enforces certain rules ("no shirt, no service") and which has an
entire class of employees hired to _eject_ patrons has suddenly become
liable for slanderous comments made by customers. And so on.)


>I have argued in the past that this list is a defacto public list because of
>the way it is advertised and to the extent it is advertised. All the protests
>by the operator to the contrary will not convince a court.
>
>Hope you folks have a good lawyer.

Pseudo-law on this list is really getting out of hand.

(By the way, I include my ideological usual-ally Black Unicorn on this
point. I'm chagrinned that he so quickly and on so many issues has made
statements about filing lawsuits--for defamation, for "false advertising"
(!!!!), and so on. Not only is this counter to the views many of us hold--I
think I sense the zeitgeist of the list--but it is supremely ineffective,
as none of these threatened lawsuits ever seem to materialize, thankfully.
Using the threat of a lawsuit as a rhetorical debating strategy is not
effective.)

--Tim May

"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."