From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:03:01 -0800 (PST)
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
Subject: Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment  in Jan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970108104122.17163J-100000@viper.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.970108154429.25470A-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:52:09 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
> To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
> Cc: Pierre Uszynski <pierre@rahul.net>, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment  in Jan
> 
> I'm not sure I see why a moderator would have any liability for passing on
> a trade secret or even a classified military secret so long as the
> moderator did not have a contractual relationship (or a clearance, as the
> case may be) with the owner.  That's free speech.  The moderator might
> have to cooperate with a subpoena from the original owner seeking to find
> who stole/released the secret, but that's a different problem.  Is there
> some trade secret theory of an implicit trusteeship that i don't know
> about? 

Not to my knowledge.  But See, subpoena comment above.

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
> along.

While as far as conduct goes I agree, in defining what will eventually be
the list content, and thus what I should or should not use/waste my time
typing up, it is an important ex ante condition that a stated policy
exist.  There are two questions here.

1>  Will my material be booted off only because it disturbs the moderator?
(I think this is the one answered by your common law reference)

2>  Will my material violate some restriction and be booted "for cause?"
(This can only be predicted accurately if there is a stated policy on what
constitutes a violation- and then only where the policy has teeth or is
generally respected).

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland