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."