I really get tired of this. On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Jim Choate wrote:
Exactly. Because the list takes in submissions from ALL parties and then resubmits them to ALL SUBSCRIBED parties it qualifies as a publisher.
Oversimplified (this is why people *pay* lawyers...). First, the defintion of "publisher" for libel purposes (but NOT for 1st Am. purposes) varies from state to state. Variations increase when one considers non-US jurisdictions. Second, to take NY state as an example, a mailing list is almost certainly NOT a "publisher" but a mere "distributor" and thus held to a MUCH lower standard of care regarding responsibility for libel. The "distributor", like the book store owner, is not presumed to be on notice of the content of the material, and must take action only if she is made specifically aware of the libelous nature of the specific content. [...]
Pseudo-law on this list is really getting out of hand.
Nothing new, alas. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.