Fantasy quotes & libel
Hi, After review of the material I forwarded by request it is clear that 'fantasy' quotes are libel provided: * the person being quoted is not a public figure. On a 'private' mailing list like the cypherpunks this is a given unless similar statements can be found in the public records. * the section added to the original quote is not clearly seperated or otherwise dilineated such that a reader will be able to tell what the original quote was and the extrapolation by the 'editor' is. * there is clear intent to effect the perception of the original authors reputation in a negative or otherwise harmful manner. * the 'fantasy' quote is not clearly marked as the opinion of the editor. While quoting persons with editing is allowed under the 1st Amendment as understood by the courts the attributation of extrapolations by a third party (meaning a party other than the original author and the reader) as 'true' quotes of the original author is not. 'Truth' is usually ascribed as protection against libel, however, opinions are not 'true', they are opinions not facts as accepted by a court. With the current 'editorial control' as provided by the cypherpunks mailing list the mailing list operator/censor may also be held in some situations accountable as well. This occurs because the relationship between list operator and the quoter is similar to that of editor and reporter in a newspaper. For the quoter to get his quote distributed the list operator must ok it. The reasoning used is that the editor 'should have known' the boundaries and applied them. Not only is ignorance not an excuse but neither is negligence. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage@ssz.com
Jim, I enjoyed the 250,000 legalese-spams that you posted to the cypherpunks list. You are certainly handy with a search-engine. You have certainly shown that the shotgun-approach to legal issues is a valid one, as one of your posts actually came close to being relevant. Jim Choate wrote:
With the current 'editorial control' as provided by the cypherpunks mailing list the mailing list operator/censor may also be held in some situations accountable as well. This occurs because the relationship between list operator and the quoter is similar to that of editor and reporter in a newspaper. For the quoter to get his quote distributed the list operator must ok it. The reasoning used is that the editor 'should have known' the boundaries and applied them.
Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that you feel you have the legal standing to sue the pants off of Sandy and John. When you're done with them, you might want to check out Canadian law and think about suing myself, as well. Of course, I realize that, given your strong position in regard to the need not to interfere in the rights of others to exert dicatatorial control over the content which passes through systems that they have paid for with their own money, you would not be so hypocritical as to attempt to interfere with those rights. An intelligent fellow such as yourself certainly wouldn't be so ignorant as to stand up in court and declare that the right to exert dicatatorial power by virtue of money and position should be negated only when it affects you personally. I am sincerely in your debt for pointing out to me that the purchase of my hardware and software, and the money I spend in maintaining it, give me license to exert total control over anything that passes through it. It was only the knowledge that you are a man who stands behind his statements that enabled me to recognize your post expressing whining outrage that the principles you espouse should apply equally to all were meant as humor, despite your failure to add the little happy-face grin :). Toto
Not only is ignorance not an excuse but neither is negligence.
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate -
Toto