Pseudo-law on the list and libel (fwd)

[Jim Choate]

Forwarded message:

> > >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.
> 
> There is a very distinct difference between ejecting disruptive influences
> and conducting one's self as a publisher and distributer.

Exactly. Because the list takes in submissions from ALL parties and then
resubmits them to ALL SUBSCRIBED parties it qualifies as a publisher. 

The real issue here is that folks on the net want the protection of the 1st
Amendment but they don't want the responsibility that goes along with it.
This list qualifies as a press. As a result it has a responsibility relating
to what it distributes.

Vulis was unpopular he was not distruptive. At NO time did he interfere with
the normal operation of the list software or prevent submissions or
remailings.

> > Pseudo-law on this list is really getting out of hand.
> 
> We need more lawyers.  That should replace the pseudo-law with real law.

We need fewer lawyers and better laws. Most pseudo-law is practiced by lawyers.


                                               Jim Choate