From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 22:20:04 -0800 (PST)
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment  in Jan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.970108154429.25470A-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <32D48A32.64B5@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Black Unicorn wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:[snippo]
> I am amazed that no one has suggested a pool of moderators with
> provisions to blind a given post from attributation to a specific
> moderator.  (Attornies- what might be impact of a Res Ipsa attack on this
> kind of set up, and incidently, on other anonymous pool arrangements?)

> > As to the choice of the moderator, innocent until proven guilty, I say.
> > I personally don't put much store in requiring a moderator to issue a code
> > of practice.  Common law and equity will do to evolve a system as it goes[mo' snippo]

Here's a perfect example of two concepts, the first very thoughtful
(however flawed), and the second not very thoughtful at all.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is good for individuals, but it is mis-
construed for organizations.  Sure, officials who do public service,
and moderators/censors who have to make judgements need to be protected
from penalties for common everyday mistakes. But "innocent until proven
guilty" is being misapplied here, to suggest advance trust for entities
that haven't earned any trust.  You might fool some people, but you
aren't fooling me.