Re: Pseudo-law on the list and libel (fwd)

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

Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
> 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.

That depends. To Timmy May, "normal operations" of this mailing list means
his being able to post lies, fabrications, and personal attacks, and his
victims not being able to respond and to call him a liar that he is. To refute
Timmy's lies and to expose him as a forger is therefore "disruptive".

I again refer you to the false complaint sent by the lying shyster from
Florida to postmaster@bwalk.dm.com. The self-described libertarian said
he already killfiled me but wanted me silenced anyway.

---

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

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.