From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 19:24:40 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [RANT] (fwd)
Message-ID: <199611070327.VAA10208@einstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



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. 

Censorship is censorship, irrespective of the source of the limitation.
Free expression is impossible in an environment of censorship. The right to
speak not only implies a right to not speak, it also implies the right to
emit complete mumbo jumbo. The actual content of the speech is irrelevant.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and press. This does not imply
in any way an abrogation of responsibility by the party speaking or
distributing it. Only that they would not have limitations on their actions
imposed by the federal government.

				ARTICLE I. 
 
	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, 
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

And just to make shure it is clear, the right to put something on the paper
(ie speech) is distinctly different from being the one doing the actual
printing.

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.

(1)  ;login:, Oct. 1996, V21N5, pp. 27


                                                    Jim Choate