Re: Mailing list liability (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> From markm@gak Sat Nov  9 21:03:24 1996
> 
> Note that none of these say anything about any commercial service being held
> liable for defamatory statements because the service cancelled a user's
> account or prevented a user from posting in certain areas.  I really don't
> see why you consider unsubscribing someone from a mailing list the equivalent
> of monitoring posts and exercising editorial control.

It is exactly editorial control because it prevents, a priori, submissions by
Vulis under that account. He is FORCED to resort to other means. That is
what the courts will see, it is what the jury will see, and it is what will
eventualy sink the list, and place its operator under financial burden for
years.

I joined this list under my own volition, I agreed to no review by the list
operator at any time. I did not agree to not hurt his feelings with my
comments or views. I did not agree to agree with the operator of the list.
I did not agree to make him feel warm and fuzzy inside. I agreed to NOTHING
other than my permission for him to put your submissions in my email box. The
only way I can be removed from this list and not open the operator up to
legal consequences is by my own volition or the total cessation of this list.
This applies to every member subscribed so long as their is no proviso posted
at subscription time.

They were held liable for the comments of their users BECAUSE they
demonstrated editorial control. In removing Vulis from the list he has
demonstrated editorial control. Prior to this act he was immune from
rantings and ravings of the various idiots on this list. Now he is not.
The fact that it was a commercial service was irrelevant and not an issue in
the court cases. What was involved was the responsibility of the service
operators, the agreement between service and users, and who had editorial
control (users v service). And finaly, if your contention is that if you set
up a press and start cranking out flyers (digital or otherwise), which defame
or otherwise liable, you are immune from prosecution unless you are a
business then you are in for a very rude surprise.

Sooner or later somebody is going to submit a posting which will go through.
That posting will be pointed at a particular personality. That personality
will take exception and sue the list operator, and because of this action
will have a very high chance of winning. Not only does the list operator
loose but we all loose because it is going to set a precedence that will
take many years more to recover from.

I seldom get personal but there are a few of you folks that have your heads up
your collective crypto-anarchy asses. Here is a simple process whereby you
can protect yourself from legal reprisals and you don't take it. God help
you because the courts shure as hell won't.

In case you people don't get it, the whole point is to REDUCE the influence
and control of the government (local, state, and federal). NOT to give even
more fodder to shoot. For a list operator a primary if not the primary
goal is to avoid any legal involvement at all costs. Throwing people off
lists with no subscription limitations is not the way to do that. To be a
succesful list operator your scruples and the way you treat your subscribers
MUST be beyond any reproach. The bottem line is that the act was not
professional and impacts the image of mailing lists, Cypherpunks, its operator,
and its members in a negative light. I have operated BBS'es and mailing
lists since '76 and find such actions on the part of a fellow service
operator to be insulting to the profession that I have enjoyed for 20 years.

Those of you who contend that because there is no explicit contract between
operator and subscriber this is sufficient to allow the operator to enact
any policies they wish with no warning or other consideration are in for a
nasty surprise. You will find that this will in fact prevent a list operator
from doing anything other than upgrading software, buying more disk space, and
paying the bills because that is the ONLY way they will be able to retain
commen carrier style protections. Without that protection a list operator is
faced with reviewing every submission to a list prior to redistribution or
face the legal and financial consequences. I do not wish to see the Cypherpunks
mailing list to become that litmus test.

Consider this, the Cypherpunks mailing list is a very public list in many
ways it is the vanguard of what tomorrows net will be like. Is this the sort
of environment that can survive? With this as the current list policy I
think we are all taking part in a dinosaur.

                                                    Jim Choate

Jim,

After having read the post where you go the dinosaur route, and
read it carefuly I might add, I have to tell you that I disagree
with you on some pretty basic levels.

The first being that lists are not so much editorialized publications,
as they are vehicles for community. That irrguardless of wether they
are moderated or unmoderated. I belive that argument would be
both easy to argue, and easy to understand in a court. And I think
it'd win.

As for the list dying off, it's in far greater danger of dying off
from off-topic noise and the sort of childish potty insults Vuilis
was spamming the list with. If you don't goto a "big issue" mentality,
and just look at it from the point of veiw of basic subscription,
and basic interest, this is blindingly obvious.

In any case, I don't know which is worse, Vulis's spam, or the spam
about Vulis and his removal. There's not a whole lot of difference,
neither are relivant to crypto, and they're about equaly as annoying.


Tim Scanlon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Jim Choate wrote:

> It is exactly editorial control because it prevents, a priori, submissions by
> Vulis under that account. He is FORCED to resort to other means. That is
> what the courts will see, it is what the jury will see, and it is what will
> eventualy sink the list, and place its operator under financial burden for
> years.

You really need to get your facts straight.  Vulis is _not_ prevented from
posting under his name to cpunks.  He has in fact made several posts since
he was removed from the list.  My question still stands.  Why is this editorial
control?  None of the cases you cited were anything like this situation.

> In case you people don't get it, the whole point is to REDUCE the influence
> and control of the government (local, state, and federal). NOT to give even
> more fodder to shoot. For a list operator a primary if not the primary
> goal is to avoid any legal involvement at all costs. Throwing people off
> lists with no subscription limitations is not the way to do that. To be a
> succesful list operator your scruples and the way you treat your subscribers
> MUST be beyond any reproach. The bottem line is that the act was not
> professional and impacts the image of mailing lists, Cypherpunks, its operator,
> and its members in a negative light. I have operated BBS'es and mailing
> lists since '76 and find such actions on the part of a fellow service
> operator to be insulting to the profession that I have enjoyed for 20 years.

Call it what ever you want, it's still government regulation to tell someone
how to run a mailing list.  The first amendment says nothing about any of this
"common carrier" nonsense.  This is just the Supreme Court's interpretation.
If you are so concerned about being "censored", why don't you just ask the list
owner to clearly state his position about subscriptions and submissions
before subscribing?  It's not right to expect someone providing a service free
of charge to accept the burden of making sure his position on subscription and
submissions are stated clearly just because you're too lazy to find out
yourself.

Mark
- -- 
finger -l for PGP key
PGP encrypted mail prefered.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMoYCzSzIPc7jvyFpAQFm4Af/dyisLfA1wOZmhhjhdjx6Mey8S8Z1v2GZ
IGf05tQTulp3jqp4b7nN7i7ErHsA19iez/7DxAkMsDkhre7cGURv4+/msZHyf4hU
FQ9qGsEMGbCUbM5SKM1EjzQOhyHCIUkaETu7aFaWZcDYaHAeNGYU4ZxDxRjBOG/V
wCnKxkKpn37uOUbKbRsY95dSYSlJQf0lJFFYr1xNttiE6gDZq+5gOg2gx1QlhFhj
+FoDj73Rwv6A/AiEX33rrwGw8z5tSEuljTyQb0UbPMyIDQ6XdYk3ostppTzp9zLl
Tlh/5RsZaAK7iLuG5dVyohDJJqudOzljtl3+iU7Vnfd9OkrtV8uEug==
=X/0v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
clear

"Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com> writes:
> On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> > It is exactly editorial control because it prevents, a priori, submissions
> > Vulis under that account. He is FORCED to resort to other means. That is
> > what the courts will see, it is what the jury will see, and it is what will
> > eventualy sink the list, and place its operator under financial burden for
> > years.
>
> You really need to get your facts straight.  Vulis is _not_ prevented from
> posting under his name to cpunks.  He has in fact made several posts since
> he was removed from the list.

The fact remains that John Gilmore has "punished" me for speech that he didn't
like by unsubscribing me from both cypherpunks and coderpunks mailing lists and
by instructing majordomo to "play dead" in response to any requests from me.
That's rude; that's sneaky; that's censorship; that's John's right.

I am not a lawyer, but I hope that if and when someone gets sued over something
posted to this mailing list, John "deep pockets" Gilmore is named a codefendant
and is unable to convince anyone of his common carrier status.

(I remind the lawsuit-happy audience that John Gilmore was the fifth employee
of Sun Micro and was given some equity in the company, which after the IPO
became worth millions of dollars.)

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps