Are flames libel?
Stephen Boursy
Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>PS "A libel is a false statement printed or broadcast about a person
>which tends to bring that person into public hatred, contempt or
>ridicule or to injure him in his business or occupation. ... Some common
>examples of libel include: ... False statements challenging a person's
>honesty, competency or fitness in their business or profession."
>
That sounds quite close to the average flame. I agree with your
interpretation wholeheartedly and hope that more such legal actions occur
with much greater frequency.
Steve
Dan Grazier
>From: bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy)
>Subject: Re: Are flames libel?
>Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 13:43:09 GMT
> Steve
Uhh, has anyone here heard of the 1st ammendment?
**********************************************************
* People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but *
* they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all *
* the idiots in the world. *
* - Calvin *
**********************************************************
Lance A. Brown
> That sounds quite close to the average flame. I agree with your
> interpretation wholeheartedly and hope that more such legal actions occur
> with much greater frequency.
What are you, a lawyer? Like this country needs MORE lawsuits
flooding the courts. Damn.
--[Lance]
Barry Perlman
Earth to Speed Bump: Kiss my ass.
(I bear full responsibility for this message.
Only someone with Shit for Brains would claim otherwise.)
=============================================================================
Barry Perlman Thinking Machines Corporation
per...@think.com 245 First Street
(617) 234-2756 Cambridge, MA 02142
Jack Sarfatti
(Lance A. Brown) writes:
Let's not get emotional. This is a real issue that we must be cool about
now that the Internet is being privatized and commercialised. The
handwriting is on the screen "Money, Money, Tickle!" :-) "Oh what a
clever clown I am!" NSF is giving up their funding of the backbone soon.
Remember we just had a Republican landslide and Clinton is a Lame Duck
president like Jimmy Carter.
The definitions of libel all come from this book that every reporter at
the SF Chronicle is given.
Jack Sarfatti
every kind of passion, some solution we must find.."
Gondoliers (Gilbert and Sullivan)
Jack Sarfatti
(Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
>>
>> Uhh, has anyone here heard of the 1st ammendment?
>
>Dan, the 1st amendment prohibits the passage of laws abridging free
speech
>rights. It says nothing about civil suits. I could sue you for
>misspelling "amendment", but it'd be hard to demonstrate damages and
you'd
>probably countersue claiming frivolous suit.
>
>--Tom
>
Yes, correct. The practical issue is that when commercial companies
control the highway they will be the targets of libel suits so that they
will have to censor flames in their own self interest. In other words,
all the news groups will be moderated. Flames will have to be confined
to private e-mail.
Stephen Boursy
Michael Dolenga <mp...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <CzGu3...@world.std.com>, bou...@world.std.com (Stephen
>
>> That sounds quite close to the average flame. I agree with your
>> interpretation wholeheartedly and hope that more such legal actions occur
>> with much greater frequency.
>
>"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will involve my lawyer".
It's not mere name calling although that in of itself can be
quite damaging over an extended period of time. Many flames invole
serious instances of libel and defamation and should be acted upon.
The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment. With free speech
comes responsiblity and libel laws protect our rights to free
speech--they do not discourage it.
Perhaps attorneys might scan the net for malicious flames and
offer their services to the victum. There is money to be made and
justice to be obtained.
>"...only those who decline to scramble up the career ladder are interesting
>as human beings."
>
>Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
I agree.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
Betsy Schwartz <bet...@shore.shore.net> wrote:
>In article <CzGu3...@world.std.com> bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy)
>writes:
>be not demonstrably true, and has to be *convincing*, meaning that it is
>likely to cause the person substantial harm because it was issued in a
>way that made it likely to be taken seriously.
>
>Name-calling per se is not libel because it is an expression of opinion,
>not demonstrably true or false, and not likely to be taken seriously. If
>a person calls another person an idiot in public debate, it's not libel.
>It's an insult, but it carries no weight. ...
The average flame generally includes libel but what you are
describing is defamation which is also serious and actionable. There is
a big difference between someone who upon occassion looses it and calls
someone a name and a poster (or a semi-orgainized group of posters)
repeatedly defames an individual. That type of behavior is all too common
and is reprehensible. The participants deserve to lose their shirts.
As to what is viewed as true that varies I'm sure from reader to
reader. The average reader, when confronted with repeated statements
about an individual will be effected by them in a way that has a
negative impact on the victum. In terms of injury it is not just the
effect on other readers that must be considered but also the
psychological impact upon the victum. I've seen people driven right off
a conference because of such juvinile nonsense.
I wonder if conspircy laws would apply in some of the more
organized and serious flames.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Now that the internet is about to be commercialized, the issue of flames
>in usenet groups as grounds for libel actions in the courts becomes more
>pressing with each passing week. I launch this thread as an attempt to
>develop some facts on what is and what is not "libel", and to ascertain
>whether or not posting articles in usenet groups is subject to the same
>legal constraints that bind journalists and book authors?
>
>"Whenever a statement can injure someone's reputation, treat it like
>fire. ... Truth is a defense but there is a vast difference between
>what's true and what can be proven to be true to a jury. .. a retraction
>is not a defense to a libel action but serves mereley to mitigate or
>lessen damages ... The fact that a person is quoted accurately is not in
>itself a defense to a libel action, if the quoted statement contains
>false information about someone. " Bruce Sanford in Synopsis of the Law
>of Libel and the Right of Privacy. This book is a handbook given to
>journalists.
Thank you for the reference. I'm also very interested in this
subject and would appreciate any info on defamation of character as
well. That seems to be an equally serious problem in the average flame.
The legal attention being given this, long overdue, is very
encouraging and one of the many advantages of press interest the heavy
influx of new users with new ideas and expectations.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
Dan Grazier <S102...@cedarville.edu> wrote:
>In article <CzGu3...@world.std.com> bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy)
>writes:
>>From: bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy)
>>Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>PS "A libel is a false statement printed or broadcast about a person
>>>which tends to bring that person into public hatred, contempt or
>>>ridicule or to injure him in his business or occupation. ... Some common
>>>examples of libel include: ... False statements challenging a person's
>>>honesty, competency or fitness in their business or profession."
>
>> That sounds quite close to the average flame. I agree with your
>>interpretation wholeheartedly and hope that more such legal actions occur
>>with much greater frequency.
>
Yes--with free speech comes responsibilty for your speech. Libel
laws do much to protect our 1st ammendment rights. We are not free to
libel, defame, incite others to violence, etc. If we were our free
speech rights wouldn't last very long.
Steve
Richard A. Schumacher
>Yes, correct. The practical issue is that when commercial companies
>control the highway they will be the targets of libel suits so that they
>will have to censor flames in their own self interest. In other words,
>all the news groups will be moderated. Flames will have to be confined
>to private e-mail.
Rubbish. They will not touch a single bit, lest they endanger
their status as common carriers. Phone companies are also not
responsible for how their channels are used and they can't be
sued for libel.
Jack Sarfatti
writes:
>
>
>
>Earth to Speed Bump: Kiss my ass.
>
======
>Barry Perlman Thinking Machines
Corporation
>per...@think.com 245 First Street
>(617) 234-2756 Cambridge, MA 02142
>
>
What do you mean by that obscure message? What's a "Speed Bump"? Do you
mean the Einstein speed of light barrier? Do you mean a bad trip on the
drug known as "speed"? Or is it just a human emotional expression with
no logical meaning to us Vulcans? :-)
Lance A. Brown
> The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
> encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment. With free speech
> comes responsiblity and libel laws protect our rights to free
> speech--they do not discourage it.
I find it about as encouraging as having fire ants in my shorts. Yes,
free speech demands responsibility but the number of lawsuits
generated by "ambulance chasing" style lawyers such as you suggest
below absolutely terrifies me.
We don't need lawyers encouraging people to sue. We need people who
take responsibility for their actions and people who don't get
threatened every time someone gets up in the face.
> Perhaps attorneys might scan the net for malicious flames and
> offer their services to the victum. There is money to be made and
> justice to be obtained.
Money: yes
Justice: I'm not so sure about.
--[Lance]
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be
bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) writes:
>In article <BETSYS.94N...@shore.shore.net>,
>Betsy Schwartz <bet...@shore.shore.net> wrote:
>>Name-calling per se is not libel because it is an expression of opinion,
>>not demonstrably true or false, and not likely to be taken seriously. If
>>a person calls another person an idiot in public debate, it's not libel.
>>It's an insult, but it carries no weight. ...
> The average flame generally includes libel but what you are
>describing is defamation which is also serious and actionable. There is
>a big difference between someone who upon occassion looses it and calls
>someone a name and a poster (or a semi-orgainized group of posters)
>repeatedly defames an individual. That type of behavior is all too common
>and is reprehensible. The participants deserve to lose their shirts. . . .
Not quite true. Libel is simply written defamation. Insults, however, need
not be libel. There must be either a factual allegation or factual
connotations for a statement to have a defamatory content.
Thus, "X is a slime" may or may not be defamatory, depending on whether the
statement connotes that X has done something slimy.
Daniel Reitman
Who thinks this
is getting off
topic
"The examples of so-called bookkeeping for a so-called public financial
institution that were presented to us as evidence could easily warrant for a
half-dozen or so loan officers an other-worldly judgment of perdition, forever
condemning them to scramble about the floor of Pandemonium, each looking for
the missing beads of his shattered abacus."
In re Lanza, 51 B.R. 125, 126 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1985).
Steve Prowten
: In article <BETSYS.94N...@shore.shore.net>,
: Betsy Schwartz <bet...@shore.shore.net> wrote:
: >In article <CzGu3...@world.std.com> bou...@world.std.com (Stephen B...
: >>In article <3ah97k$q...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
: Steve
Ok, I'll come clean. It's all a big conspiracy to compel you to
spontaneously combust some night, as you drool all over the keyboard.
And all of us out here in Munchkinland will dance and sing. And
system administrators all over the world will free up disk space.
And it was the Martian Mafia, in cahoots with Tammy Faye Bakker, who
put the hit on JFK.
Now, take your pills and get some rest, Snowflake.
Steven
Erik Max Francis
> Uhh, has anyone here heard of the 1st ammendment?
There's a difference between the First Amendment and libel. You're
free to speak your mind, as long as you don't specifically deride the
person's integrity with maliciously false statements. If I say that
you're a jerk, that's one thing, because that's an opinion; if I say
that you're a liar who steals from honorable people and cheats at his
taxes, that's something else.
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max m...@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA, USA (GIGO, Hg, Omega, Universe, Z) ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. ("All things that are, are lights.") -><- \_/
Stephen Boursy
>Ok, I'll come clean. It's all a big conspiracy to compel you to
>spontaneously combust some night, as you drool all over the keyboard.
>And all of us out here in Munchkinland will dance and sing. And
>system administrators all over the world will free up disk space.
>And it was the Martian Mafia, in cahoots with Tammy Faye Bakker, who
>put the hit on JFK.
>
I figured thte JFK hit was involved by I must admit that Tammy
Bakker hadn't yet occured to me. And I know for a fact that the Martian
Mafia has no involvement whatsoever.
But I'd still like some serious, note serious, opinions regarding
conspiricy preferably with personalization. Conspiricy laws are being
used for just about everything now a days. It's how they virtually shut
down Operation Rescue for example. And the net does involve interstate
communication.
>Now, take your pills and get some rest, Snowflake.
Thank you for your concern. It speaks well of your argument and
is right on topic to the discussion at hand.
Steve
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
: Uhh, has anyone here heard of the 1st ammendment?
To what and how does it affect me? USA != World.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (da...@druid.com) |
Planix, Inc. | Democracy is three wolves and a
Toronto, Ontario, Canada | sheep voting on what's for dinner.
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) |
Stephen Boursy
Lance A. Brown <l...@biostat.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
>Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> writes:
>
>> The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
>> encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment. With free speech
>> comes responsiblity and libel laws protect our rights to free
>> speech--they do not discourage it.
>
>I find it about as encouraging as having fire ants in my shorts. Yes,
>free speech demands responsibility but the number of lawsuits
>generated by "ambulance chasing" style lawyers such as you suggest
>below absolutely terrifies me.
>
>We don't need lawyers encouraging people to sue. We need people who
>take responsibility for their actions and people who don't get
>threatened every time someone gets up in the face.
>
alternatives to more violent means of conflict resolution.
>> Perhaps attorneys might scan the net for malicious flames and
>> offer their services to the victum. There is money to be made and
>> justice to be obtained.
>
>Money: yes
>Justice: I'm not so sure about.
>
Perhaps an abundance of both.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be <drei...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
>Not quite true. Libel is simply written defamation. Insults, however, need
>not be libel. There must be either a factual allegation or factual
>connotations for a statement to have a defamatory content.
>
>Thus, "X is a slime" may or may not be defamatory, depending on whether the
>statement connotes that X has done something slimy.
I would think that calling X a slime might be a momentary lapse
in judgement with little value or of little concern. However, if the
statement were repeated over and over it could have a very detrimental
effectt and would certainly be actionable.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
Robert Winters <rwin...@math.harvard.edu> wrote:
>In article <CzGu3...@world.std.com> bou...@world.std.com
>>In article <3ah97k$q...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>PS "A libel is a false statement printed or broadcast about a person
>>>which tends to bring that person into public hatred, contempt or
>>>ridicule or to injure him in his business or occupation. ...
>>
>>interpretation wholeheartedly and hope that more such legal actions occur
>>with much greater frequency.
>Is it possible for someone to sue himself for libel? Let's see...... Who
>do we know who has broadcast false statements that brought ridicule,
>contempt, and public hatred directed at himself? It brings someone to mind.
>Now what was his name again????
>
I think you must be referring to CAmbridge City Councellor Bill
Walsh who just got sentenced to jail for 41 counts of Federal Bank Fraud
involving condo's and was also found by the judge to have committed
purjury in court. He has been ordered removed from the City Council as
of Thursday I believe by the SJC. His Prop. 9 friends are up in arms
that he can no longer represent their interests.
Let's see. Who was it that made pretence to being an impartial
observer in the rent control debate before the election and only took a
'strong' public position after the results were in. The guy was a
politician in Cambridge, I believe, and recently ran for City Council and
came in at close to the bottom of a very large heap. This same
politician had sought the endorsement of the Cambridge Tenants Union even
though he has long been familiar with Camb. politics and only after the
election did he publically critisize the Tenants Union--a true act of
courage. It now seems that after the results are in he wishing to stroke
a flame that he felt compelled to refrain from before the vote.
But I guess that is permissable behavior for a politician although
voters are more intelligent that you might realize. For example, if one
favors rent control and then is against rent control after the vote tally
one might wonder in regards to which side of the fence they might decide
to jump off next.
Steve
Stan Koper
:>>Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:>
:>>>PS "A libel is a false statement printed or broadcast about a person
:>>>which tends to bring that person into public hatred, contempt or
:>>>examples of libel include: ... False statements challenging a person's
:>>>honesty, competency or fitness in their business or profession."
They keyword here is "false". Characterizing someone as an asshole
or a "speed bump" on the "information superhighway" is probably not
subject to tests of truth or falsity.
Stan Koper
sko...@netcom.com
"The Bill of Rights--Ten 'Impediments to Law Enforcement'?"
This message brought to you by uqwk and Yarn 0.73
MARSHALL DUDLEY
-> Yes, correct. The practical issue is that when commercial companies
-> control the highway they will be the targets of libel suits so that they
-> will have to censor flames in their own self interest. In other words,
-> all the news groups will be moderated. Flames will have to be confined
-> to private e-mail.
If this happens it will be the end of Internet access for many if not most
people. To give an idea just how difficult this would be take a look at some
figures. At this site we receive about 80,000 news items a day. That is
almost one news item per second, 24 hours a day. If we were to hire censors to
read each item, and give each censor 1 minute on each item to review it, we
would need 180 employees working 8 hours a day 7 days a week to cover it (not
to mention the lawyers to handle problems caused by the censoring of
questionalble materials). We charge $29.95 a year for Internet EMAIL and
Usenet access. With about 100 users total using the Internet that works out to
about $8.20 per day income from Internet and Usenet. The censor's cost at
minimum wage would run slightly over $5,000 a day. The only two choices we
would have would be to drop Usenet news, or to increase our user fees from
about $30 a year to about $25,000 a year. The end result would be the loss of
internet services to many if not most people. Those sites which did keep Usenet
would I suspect drop 99% of the news groups, so that they could censor the
remaining few groups at a workable cost. Making Internet suppliers liable for
slander from users is like making the phone company liable for slander for
their callers. It doesn't make sense from a legal or economic standpoint.
The idea is nothing more than the continuation of the legal profession's
direction of shifting liability from the guilty party(s) to those they perceive
as having deep pockets.
Marshall
MARSHALL DUDLEY
Scott Erb
I don't think you have to worry. It seems like it would be hard to prove
that someone authored a flame. Someone could claim that their account
was used by someone else against their will or without their knowledge
(e.g., they failed to logout, etc.), or someone could simply deny having
written a word of the flame, leaving it up to the flamed individual to
have to prove that the words that appeared on the screen were actually
written by the individual involved. Finally, how does the notion of
damage fit in? In this group (I'm reading from sci.skeptic) a few people
flame all the time, and their flames are hardly taken seriously. (One
individual, for instance, constantly calls people "idiots, shit for
brains, morons, etc." and after awhile people simply expect it from
him). Do those flames really damage? How would that be proven?
I think the only time libel really occurs is when a person or group of
people choose to intentionally damage the reputation of another
individual, through the posting of factual lies, and the cross posting of
insults and false claims to other groups. This happens rarely, and would be
something more than the typical flame or flame war.
On the other hand, its getting hard for law school grads to find
work...maybe some litigation in this field would help those poor new
lawyers. Sort of like a social program :)
-Scott
james dolan
-Dan Grazier (S102...@cedarville.edu) wrote:
-: Uhh, has anyone here heard of the 1st ammendment?
-
-To what and how does it affect me? USA != World.
perhaps it will affect any attempts you might make to sue posters
posting from the usa for libel. well, you asked.
Ezra Story
>
> It's not mere name calling although that in of itself can be
>quite damaging over an extended period of time. Many flames invole
>serious instances of libel and defamation and should be acted upon.
An example would be nice. I can think of many things people have said in
sci.skeptic alone, but everyone of them implied pretty much that it was the
opinion of the poster. Do you wish a 10 line disclaimer to be added to
each and every posting?
> The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
>encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment. With free speech
>comes responsiblity and libel laws protect our rights to free
>speech--they do not discourage it.
Prove it. I'm pretty sure you can't. Remember you're talking about
individual people on the net, not a newspaper or a tv station.
> Perhaps attorneys might scan the net for malicious flames and
>offer their services to the victum. There is money to be made and
>justice to be obtained.
Justice? You mean money.
Ezra
--
| Ezra Story | e...@panix.com | Ezy (IRC) | *********************** |
| Penguins! Get yer ice cold penguins here! Free alien monster |
| with every purchase! Money back guarantee! | +++++++++++++++++++ |
Jack Sarfatti
Kai Henningsen
> In article <LAB.94No...@biostat7.mc.duke.edu>,
> Lance A. Brown <l...@biostat.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
> >Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> writes:
> >
> >> The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
> >> encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment. With free speech
> >> comes responsiblity and libel laws protect our rights to free
> >> speech--they do not discourage it.
> >
> >I find it about as encouraging as having fire ants in my shorts. Yes,
> >free speech demands responsibility but the number of lawsuits
> >generated by "ambulance chasing" style lawyers such as you suggest
> >below absolutely terrifies me.
> >
> >We don't need lawyers encouraging people to sue. We need people who
> >take responsibility for their actions and people who don't get
> >threatened every time someone gets up in the face.
> >
> I think we need both. Civilized nations have laws as
> alternatives to more violent means of conflict resolution.
Well, with regard to the net, lawyers *are* the more violent means of
conflict "resolution" (not that they do resolve a conflict - they don't,
they only suppress it, and at huge costs).
> >> Perhaps attorneys might scan the net for malicious flames and
> >> offer their services to the victum. There is money to be made and
> >> justice to be obtained.
> >
> >Money: yes
> >Justice: I'm not so sure about.
> >
>
> Perhaps an abundance of both.
Most certainly no justice at all.
I am convinced that the scenario you promote will be the *end* of a civil
environment in the net.
Kai
--
Internet: k...@ms.maus.de, k...@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!{ms.maus.de!kh,khms.westfalen.de!kai}
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
Stan Koper
bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
:
: The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
Just because someone calls you a "speed bump" or an asshole, or
worse. To prove libel, you have to prove that it's false.
Aren't you the guy that reported Betsy Schwartz for misuse of state
equipment because she was using UMASS-Boston's computers to post to
the debate on Prop 9? Aren't you the guy that called Barry
Perlman's employer and implied that they might be in trouble with
the state for not reporting "in kind" campaign contributions,
because *he* was posting to the Prop 9 debate using his employer's
machine?
In my book, that makes you an asshole.
: Perhaps attorneys might scan the net for malicious flames and
:offer their services to the victum. There is money to be made and
:justice to be obtained.
:
Boy, that's sick. But considering the source, I'm not surprised.
MARSHALL DUDLEY
Carl J Lydick
=In <3ajdlq$4...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> sarf...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
=
=>Yes, correct. The practical issue is that when commercial companies
=>control the highway they will be the targets of libel suits so that they
=>will have to censor flames in their own self interest. In other words,
=>all the news groups will be moderated. Flames will have to be confined
=>to private e-mail.
=
=
=Rubbish. They will not touch a single bit, lest they endanger
=their status as common carriers. Phone companies are also not
=responsible for how their channels are used and they can't be
=sued for libel.
Sorry, but case law to date has decided that such providers are NOT common
carriers. You can't endanger a status you don't have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Carl J Lydick
=In article <CzGu3...@world.std.com> bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) writes:
=>From: bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy)
=>Subject: Re: Are flames libel?
=>Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 13:43:09 GMT
=
=>In article <3ah97k$q...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
=>Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
=
=>>PS "A libel is a false statement printed or broadcast about a person
=>>which tends to bring that person into public hatred, contempt or
=>>ridicule or to injure him in his business or occupation. ... Some common
=>>examples of libel include: ... False statements challenging a person's
=>>honesty, competency or fitness in their business or profession."
=>>
=
=> That sounds quite close to the average flame. I agree with your
=>interpretation wholeheartedly and hope that more such legal actions occur
=>with much greater frequency.
=
=> Steve
=
=Uhh, has anyone here heard of the 1st ammendment?
Yes. Some of us, however, unlike you, understand it.
Obscurity
bou...@world.std.com "Stephen Boursy" writes:
> The average flame generally includes libel but what you are
> describing is defamation which is also serious and actionable. There is
> a big difference between someone who upon occassion looses it and calls
> someone a name and a poster (or a semi-orgainized group of posters)
> repeatedly defames an individual. That type of behavior is all too common
> and is reprehensible. The participants deserve to lose their shirts.
>
> As to what is viewed as true that varies I'm sure from reader to
> reader. The average reader, when confronted with repeated statements
> about an individual will be effected by them in a way that has a
> negative impact on the victum. In terms of injury it is not just the
> effect on other readers that must be considered but also the
> psychological impact upon the victum. I've seen people driven right off
> a conference because of such juvinile nonsense.
>
> I wonder if conspircy laws would apply in some of the more
> organized and serious flames.
Sheesh, I'm glad I don't live in America.
Yuu're an asshole. Sue me.
--
Obscurity.
"A flash of steel and a scream of pain. The pain is short and won't come again
A spray of red and a glare of white, replaced by black like the darkest night."
Obsc...@burnout.demon.co.uk "It's just like always coming down" - A.E.
Stephen Boursy
Stan Koper <sko...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <CzHtG...@world.std.com>,
>bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>:
>: The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
>:encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment. With free speech
>:comes responsibility and libel laws protect our rights to free
>:speech--they do not discourage it.
>
>equipment because she was using UMASS-Boston's computers to post to
>the debate on Prop 9?
The person in question made a public enquiry of me regarding the
law and how it applied to state employees vs. corporate employees. I can
repost the entire stream if you'd like much of which was extremely
abusive in nature and involved several that may find it embarassing at
this point. My original post concerned the use of corporate accounts
without disclaimers. Now I XXX out her name in your quote--are you
concerned with her since you just crossposted her name all over the net?
In answer to her enquiry I very politely responded with the
correct legal citations, chap 268A of the Ma. Gen. Laws of Ma. which
concerns personal use of public resources by state employees and Chap. 55
which governs political use by state employees. There were many in the
group that were covered by that--it was she who made a public enqury
rather than a private email request for info. At the time she was more
inclined to agree with my political postions--it was not an attempt to
silence her.
In return I was flamed with her assistance. I then called the
State Ethics Commission which enforces Chap. 268A for verification of my
interpretation and it was they who insisted I file a complaint. I have
no regreats for doing so and the poster in question now freely expresses
herself from a private acccount. She also made a post later on which I
find it difficult to believe you did not see asking posters to refrain
from negative behaviors regarding my having contacted a state agency and
she also said that it was appropriate to do so. So it appears you
concern is not for her well being but is more self centered in nature.
>Aren't you the guy that called xxxxx
>xxxxxx's employer and implied that they might be in trouble with
>the state for not reporting "in kind" campaign contributions,
>because *he* was posting to the Prop 9 debate using his employer's
>machine?
No. His corporate sponsored political posts on a ballot iniative
that was facing the electorate is an entirely separate issue. I spoke
with his legal department regarding continual abuse and they requested
copies of those posts. I've not yet provided them with these, only made
them aware of the general contents. His company will receive them
through a legal representative. He has since added a disclaimer to his
corporate .sig which is in of itself intended to abuse the necessity of
disclaimers. At the time I contacted his employer he was representing
TMC without a disclaimer.
>In my book, that makes you an asshole.
I would have to infer the same of you for thinking that although
I would word it someone differently.
>: Perhaps attorneys might scan the net for malicious flames and
>:offer their services to the victum. There is money to be made and
>:justice to be obtained.
>:
>
>Boy, that's sick. But considering the source, I'm not surprised.
Yes--that's what flames are all about really. Attacking an
individual rather than addressing the merits of the subject at hand
which in this case is the appropriatness of slander and defamation in a
public forum. 'Asshole' and 'that's sick' are extremely thoughtful
debating points. However, the points remain and I'm very glad the media
and the legal profession is getting involved. As more new users come in
this will become much more common and it is long overdue.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
Ramji Venkateswaran <Ra...@worldlnk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article: <S1020315.5...@cedarville.edu>
>S102...@cedarville.edu (Dan Grazier ) writes:
>> Uhh, has anyone here heard of the 1st ammendment?
>
>Erm..here we have a problem, the Internet is multi-national and
>multi-lingual..so whose laws hold here? US, UK, German...you see my
>point... So the 1st amendment may or may not apply, and how about
>flames by anonymous poster...who gets sued?
>
What are the laws in the UK and elsewhere regarding slander?
What would be anologous to the US 1st amendment in the UK?
Steve
Jack Sarfatti
Lydick) writes:
>=
>=
>=Rubbish. They will not touch a single bit, lest they endanger
>=their status as common carriers. Phone companies are also not
>=responsible for how their channels are used and they can't be
>=sued for libel.
>
>Sorry, but case law to date has decided that such providers are NOT
common
>carriers. You can't endanger a status you don't have.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Does this mean they can be sued for Libel? I am very interested in this
for practical reasons since I will be getting a Sun Netra Internet
unixserver with ISDN lines and MOSAIC server software for on-line
commercial transactions and I want to know if I can be sued if one of my
content providers writes anything that is legal "libel"?
Jack Sarfatti
Henningsen) writes:
>
>I am convinced that the scenario you promote will be the *end* of a
civil
>environment in the net.
>
>Kai
>--
I don't think any one indivdual is promoting anything. It is really a
matter of unconscious "free market" forces - more like natural selection
pressure.
Stephen Boursy
Jack Sarfatti
DUDLEY) writes:
Indeed, this is a real problem which is why I have brought it up. One
solution maybe is to have any "consumers" agree to a no libel
license????
Jack Sarfatti
(Obscurity) writes:
>
>Sheesh, I'm glad I don't live in America.
>
I thought England has just enacted some sort of Internet censorship just
a few weeks ago????
Barry Perlman
|> ... In terms of injury it is not just the
|> effect on other readers that must be considered but also the
|> psychological impact upon the victum. I've seen people driven right off
|> a conference because of such juvinile nonsense.
Hey, Speed Bump, your first good idea!
(I alone am responsible for this message. No Schoolyard Bully can change
that basic reality, and ShitforBrains should understand that by now.)
=============================================================================
Barry Perlman Thinking Machines Corporation
per...@think.com 245 First Street
(617) 234-2756 Cambridge, MA 02142
J. S. Greenfield
>=>>PS "A libel is a false statement printed or broadcast about a person
>=>>which tends to bring that person into public hatred, contempt or
>=>>ridicule or to injure him in his business or occupation. ... Some common
>=>>examples of libel include: ... False statements challenging a person's
>=>>honesty, competency or fitness in their business or profession."
This definition ignores a critical element of libel law. For a statement
to constitute libel, it must be offered as a statement of fact, and must
be understood by an average person to be a statement of fact, based upon
some special knowledge to which the issuer of the statement is privy.
Statements of opinion--including those offered in the form of a statement
of fact (e.g., "Joe lies through his teeth...")--are not libel. Conclusions
(even wrong conclusions) based upon disclosed information are not libel,
given that they are understood to be drawn from that disclosed information.
For a statement to constitute libel, it must lead an average reader to
believe that the statement is one of fact based upon some private knowledge
of the writer. The statement must, of course, meet the general description
provided above, and additionally, must actually be believed and cause damage
in order to be actionable.
Occasionally, flames do involve libel, but I cannot agree that it is anywhere
near as common as some folks posting here seem to believe. The average flame
is understood to be an extreme expression of opinion, riddled with insults
based upon largely (often entirely) public disputes. Furthermore, claims
made in such flames are generally subject to considerable skepticism, and
have very questionable impact in terms of damages. Consequently, it seems
quite unlikely to me that very many flames constitute actionable libel.
--
J. S. Greenfield gre...@thelair.zynet.com
(So what were you expecting?
A Gorilla?!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
Jack Sarfatti
writes:
This thread is getting too off the topic for sci.physics which I will
exclude in future replies - look in misc.legal if you want to follow
this thread.
J. S. Greenfield
>>=Rubbish. They will not touch a single bit, lest they endanger
>>=their status as common carriers. Phone companies are also not
>>=responsible for how their channels are used and they can't be
>>=sued for libel.
>>
>>Sorry, but case law to date has decided that such providers are NOT
>>common carriers. You can't endanger a status you don't have.
I don't think case law has anything to do with it (since common carrier status
must be established by an act of Congress), but you are correct that
internet providers do not have such status.
Nonetheless, engaging in proactive censorship is a positive action undertaking
editorial control and with it liability.
Even without common carrier status, it is not clear that internet providers
are liable for anything but the most gross forms of negligence (i.e.,
failing to intervene in clearly illegal behavior, of which they were aware).
There does, in fact, seem to be some support in case law for the belief that
choosing not to censor is most likely to protect a provider from liability
for the actions of its users.
Stephen Boursy
daniel r. reitman, attorney to be <drei...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>In article <CzIrD...@world.std.com>,
> bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) writes:
>
>> I would think that calling X a slime might be a momentary lapse
>>in judgement with little value or of little concern. However, if the
>>statement were repeated over and over it could have a very detrimental
>>effectt and would certainly be actionable.
>
>The distinction Mr. Boursy raises is based on damages, not liability. That
>the
>statement is made at all renders it a basis for liability. The number of
>hearers, or the identity of the audience, is used in calculating damages. For
>example, if the only person who hears the statement is X's boss, who then
>proceeds to fire X, then X will be able to recover damages based on lost
>earnings. Conversely, if X suffers no easily calculable retaliation, but a
>wide audience hears the statement, X will probably be able to get emotional
>damages, and, depending on the exact statement and the level of proof that X
>can put forward, may be able to get presumed damages as an estimate of
>reputational injury. (This assumes that X is a private person, using the
>Gertz standard.
Thanks. What is the Gertz standard?
Steve
Barry Perlman
|> In article <DIgpkKZH...@netcom.com>,
|> Stan Koper <sko...@netcom.com> wrote:
|>
|> >Aren't you the guy that called xxxxx
|> >xxxxxx's employer and implied that they might be in trouble with
|> >the state for not reporting "in kind" campaign contributions,
|> >because *he* was posting to the Prop 9 debate using his employer's
|> >machine?
|>
|>
|> No. His corporate sponsored political posts on a ballot iniative
|> that was facing the electorate is an entirely separate issue. I spoke
|> with his legal department regarding continual abuse and they requested
|> copies of those posts. I've not yet provided them with these, only made
|> them aware of the general contents. His company will receive them
|> through a legal representative. He has since added a disclaimer to his
|> corporate .sig which is in of itself intended to abuse the necessity of
|> disclaimers. At the time I contacted his employer he was representing
|> TMC without a disclaimer.
There you go again, inventing "corporate sponsored political posts" and
libeling both TMC and me, and spreading your lies all over the Internet.
Did that massive staff of high-powered lawyers you keep on retainer tell
you that having Shit for Brains was a defense against a libel charge?
(I alone am responsible for this message.)
Barry Perlman
|> In article <3aj5ct$k...@decaxp.harvard.edu>,
|> Robert Winters <rwin...@math.harvard.edu> wrote:
|>
|> >Is it possible for someone to sue himself for libel? Let's see...... Who
|> >do we know who has broadcast false statements that brought ridicule,
|> >contempt, and public hatred directed at himself? It brings someone to mind.
|> >Now what was his name again????
|> >
|>
|> [ Irrelevant rantings removed.]
|>
|> Let's see. Who was it that made pretence to being an impartial
|> observer in the rent control debate before the election and only took a
|> 'strong' public position after the results were in. The guy was a
|> politician in Cambridge, I believe, and recently ran for City Council and
|> came in at close to the bottom of a very large heap. This same
|> politician had sought the endorsement of the Cambridge Tenants Union even
|> though he has long been familiar with Camb. politics and only after the
|> election did he publically critisize the Tenants Union--a true act of
|> courage. It now seems that after the results are in he wishing to stroke
|> a flame that he felt compelled to refrain from before the vote.
Gee, Speed Bump, what makes you think Rob meant you? Is the evidence
overwhelming? What do you think that should tell you?
Hey Speed Bump, are you referring to the candidate in last year's election
who received the editorial endorsement for #1 vote for City Council from
your beloved Cambridge Chronicle? Are you referring to the organizer of
Cambridge's recycling program? I suppose the city having a recycling
program at all is not very important compared to promoting peace in Central
America or insuring the rights of laboratory rats, but compared to those
other lofty goals it has the remarkable virtue of being real.
Oh well, you've pretty well established that reality is not a consideration
in the formulation of your Usenet postings.
Sean Donelan
> Trucking companies are generally common carriers (that's where the
> term comes from, common carriage) but they're certainly not regulated
> by the FCC.
They're regulated by the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission). In most
cases, common carrier protection comes with some form of government
regulations. That's one of the big (biggest) reasons the on-line vendor's
lawyers get really strained looks on their faces when someone mentions
becoming a common carrier.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: se...@dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Barry Shein
From: ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) [responding to someone else]
>=Rubbish. They will not touch a single bit, lest they endanger
>=their status as common carriers. Phone companies are also not
>=responsible for how their channels are used and they can't be
>=sued for libel.
>
>Sorry, but case law to date has decided that such providers are NOT common
>carriers. You can't endanger a status you don't have.
I believe people have now gotten themselves thoroughly confused on the
issues.
Yes, common carriers generally cannot be held responsible for content.
Yes, internet service providers are not generally what the FCC and
telecom law specifically defines as "common carriers" (not exactly
certain what we say about Sprint's internet services but in general.)
No, it is not ONLY common carriers who are not generally held
responsible for content. It is just one possibility.
For example, there is a lot of good case law that indicates that
bookstores and similar (eg, newstands) can't be held responsible for
libelous materials sold in their store unless they had some sort of
prior knowledge or involvement (eg, ignored a court order to remove
such materials, or were also the authors or publishers, but that
completely begs the question.)
Trucking companies are generally common carriers (that's where the
term comes from, common carriage) but they're certainly not regulated
by the FCC. Fedex and UPS aren't responsible for the content of what
they carry, in general (they certainly wouldn't be responsible for
libelous materials you sent thru them.) Obviously there are some nits
(eg, dangerous materials like explosives) but let's not get silly and
distracted here we're talking about written materials.
It's all rather complex and one person saying ``if they're common
carriers they wouldn't be responsible for content'' and someone else
saying ``but they're not (FCC-defined) common carriers'' and then
someone else concluding ``ok so therefore they *are* responsible for
content!'' is, well, a bit lost in the wilderness.
By and large if there is no editorial function, more materials than
can be reasonably checked, no custom of reviewing materials' content,
no prior knowledge, then responsibility for content would tend to stay
with the originator of the content, not the "carrier".
Even within one category there can be all sorts of variations of
standards of practice. For example, rules concerning newspaper
advertisements vs their news sections are quite different. The law
recognizes the urgency with which news needs to be dispatched (ie,
timely distribution of news is in the public's interest, and to
perform that not everything can be checked carefully), but requires
more care when dealing with advertising materials tho even then claims
about value or price lie with the advertiser not the paper. But for
example if you paid for a page ad that said "John Smith is a
Whoremonger!" that would be viewed differently, vis a vis the paper's
potential responsibility, than a (bona-fide) news item that said "Jane
Doe Claims John Smith is a Whoremonger!"
It all generally makes reasonable sense so long as national security
doesn't become an issue, in which case it can get pretty strange.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Kevin Darcy
>In article <BETSYS.94N...@shore.shore.net>,
>Betsy Schwartz <bet...@shore.shore.net> wrote:
>>
>>Name-calling per se is not libel because it is an expression of opinion,
>>not demonstrably true or false, and not likely to be taken seriously. If
>>a person calls another person an idiot in public debate, it's not libel.
>>It's an insult, but it carries no weight. ...
>
> The average flame generally includes libel but what you are
>describing is defamation which is also serious and actionable. There is
>a big difference between someone who upon occassion looses it and calls
>someone a name and a poster (or a semi-orgainized group of posters)
>repeatedly defames an individual. That type of behavior is all too common
>and is reprehensible. The participants deserve to lose their shirts.
As another poster has pointed out, libel is no more than written defamation.
I'm not sure why you think libel perpetrated by a group is somehow a different
offense than libel perpetrated by an individual. Are you getting confused with
conspiracy, perhaps?
> As to what is viewed as true that varies I'm sure from reader to
>reader.
Well, for defamation (libel or slander), it doesn't really matter whether the
allegedly defamatory statement was considered true by the readership; what
really matters is whether it is considered true by the jury hearing the case.
And the burden of proving that it is true usually rests with the defendant
claiming truth as a defense.
>The average reader, when confronted with repeated statements
>about an individual will be effected by them in a way that has a
>negative impact on the victum. In terms of injury it is not just the
>effect on other readers that must be considered but also the
>psychological impact upon the victum.
Defamation generally requires a showing of damage to the plaintiff. Now, if
you're suggesting the tort of "infliction of mental distress", then you would
only have to show psychological damage to the victim. But this tort also is
somewhat circumscribed. This is what _Prosser and Keeton_ has to say (copious
footnotes elided):
There is virtually unanimous agreement that such ordinary
defendants are not liable for mere insult, indignity, annoyance or even
threats, where the case is lacking other circumstances of aggravation.
The reasons are not far to seek. Our manners, and with them our law,
have not yet progressed to the point where we are able to afford a
remedy in the form of tort damages for all intended mental disturbance.
Liability of course cannot be extended to every trivial indignity.
There is no occasion for the law to intervene with balm for wounded
feelings in every case where a flood of billingsgate is loosed in an
argument over a back fence. The plaintiff must necessarily be expected
and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and
to acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. There is still,
in this country at least, such a thing as liberty to express an
unflattering opinion of another, however wounding it may be to the
other's feelings; and in the interest not only of freedom of speech but
also of avoidance of other more dangerous conduct, it is still very
desirable that some safety valve be left through which irascible
tempers may blow off relatively harmless steam.
There is the further, and still more significant, evident and
serious danger of fictitious claims and vexatious suits in such cases.
Petty insult or indignity lacks, for its very nature, any convincing
assurance that the asserted mental distress is genuine, or that if
genuine it is serious, and reasonable. When a citizen who has been
called a son of a bitch testifies that the epithet has destroyed his
slumber, ruined his digestion, wrecked his nervous system, and
permanently impaired his health, other citizens who on occasion have
been called the same thing without catastrophic harm may have
legitimate doubts that he was really so upset, or that if he were that
his sufferings could possibly be so reasonable and justified under the
circumstances as to be entitled to compensation.
Accordingly, it is generally held that there can be no recovery
for mere profanity, obscenity, or abuse, without circumstances of
aggravation, or for insults, indignities or threats which are
considered to amount to nothing more than mere annoyances. The
plaintiff cannot recover merely because of hurt feelings. [...]
>I've seen people driven right off
>a conference because of such juvinile nonsense.
Since no-one has a right to Usenet in the first place, I don't see that being
"driven off" can be a cause of action either...
- Kevin
Greg Block
In article <LAB.94No...@biostat7.mc.duke.edu> l...@biostat.mc.duke.edu (Lance A. Brown) writes:
> Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> writes:
>
> > The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
> > encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment. With free speech
>
> free speech demands responsibility but the number of lawsuits
> generated by "ambulance chasing" style lawyers such as you suggest
> below absolutely terrifies me.
Hey, I disagree completely. Everyone knows that we've got the best legal
system in the world, and it's about time wthat the Internet community got
to benefit from its bloodthirst, lack of tact, self-indulgent, and
self-regulated behavior, like the rest of the US has to suffer. After all,
the system works so well, why not share it?
I heard something recently; I heard that if the US had -MORE- lawyers, we'd
be better off. Anyone have an opinion on that?
Heh.
--
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
(: "We're not doing it because we're nice. Gregory R. Block :)
(: We'll do it because we're kids and we Oubliette Software :)
(: like to draw naked people." Win...@Oubliette.com :)
(: -Yakko Warner to Michaelangelo :)
(: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :)
J. S. Greenfield
>>Name-calling per se is not libel because it is an expression of opinion,
>>not demonstrably true or false, and not likely to be taken seriously. If
>>a person calls another person an idiot in public debate, it's not libel.
>>It's an insult, but it carries no weight. ...
>
> The average flame generally includes libel but what you are
>describing is defamation which is also serious and actionable.
Nonsense. Statements of opinion are not defamation. What's more, there isn't
even a cause of action for "defamation" in the US. One either claims slander
or libel, which are oral and written forms of defamtion, respectively.
>There is
>a big difference between someone who upon occassion looses it and calls
>someone a name and a poster (or a semi-orgainized group of posters)
>repeatedly defames an individual. That type of behavior is all too common
>and is reprehensible. The participants deserve to lose their shirts.
If an individual post does not constitute defamation, a collection of
(nearly-) identical posts do not constitute defamation, either.
In article <1994Nov21.0...@rotag.mi.org> ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>[...]
>
>> As to what is viewed as true that varies I'm sure from reader to
>>reader.
>
>Well, for defamation (libel or slander), it doesn't really matter whether the
>allegedly defamatory statement was considered true by the readership; what
>really matters is whether it is considered true by the jury hearing the case.
Not quite. In order to be actionable, libel or slander must cause *damages*.
If the defamtory statements are not believed (and in some way acted upon, to
the defamed individual's detriment) then no damages exist, and the statements
are not actionable (as libel or slander), regardless of how untrue they may
be.
>[...]
>
>Defamation generally requires a showing of damage to the plaintiff.
If we agree that the readership must believe the defamatory statements in
order for there to be damages, then we agree...
Jack Sarfatti
Darcy) writes:
>Defamation generally requires a showing of damage to the plaintiff.
Now, if
>you're suggesting the tort of "infliction of mental distress", then you
would
>only have to show psychological damage to the victim. But this tort
also is
>somewhat circumscribed.
The damage that I have in mind is purely financial. I have an oral
contract for a business deal of six figures with a Mr. Suares who then
reads a flame by a Mr Van Der Leun on The Well and, consequently,
cancels to deal. That's clear damages if it can be proved, right?
Jack Sarfatti
Erb <e...@stolaf.edu> writes:
>
>I think the only time libel really occurs is when a person or group of
>people choose to intentionally damage the reputation of another
>individual, through the posting of factual lies, and the cross posting
of
>insults and false claims to other groups. This happens rarely, and
would be
>something more than the typical flame or flame war.
>
Well that pretty much describes the campaigns of Gerard Van Der Leun who
calls himself "Boswell" at bos...@well.com
Stan Ryckman
[snip]
>I heard something recently; I heard that if the US had -MORE- lawyers, we'd
>be better off. Anyone have an opinion on that?
>
>Heh.
Well, taken to the extreme, let's see... Everyone will be a lawyer.
Even us armchair types.
I'm hungry, but nobody grew me any food.
I agree with you:
Heh.
Cheers,
Stan.
--
HELP! I'M BEING HELD PRISONER IN A .SIGNATURE FACTORY!
Stan Ryckman s...@alden.com
Carl J Lydick
=Sheesh, I'm glad I don't live in America.
Don't worry. The idiot to whom you're responding is incredibly clueless (not
that that's surprising: Very few Americans bother to learn anything at all
about the laws they quote). Very few folks in this country take ANY courses
which deal with the laws of the land.
Ron Newman
"ne.general" from your Newsgroups: line when following up.
(I'd get rid of "sci.physics" too, while I'm at it.)
--
Ron Newman MIT Media Laboratory
rne...@media.mit.edu
Carl J Lydick
=In article <BZS.94No...@world.std.com>, b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
=> Trucking companies are generally common carriers (that's where the
=> term comes from, common carriage) but they're certainly not regulated
=> by the FCC.
=
=They're regulated by the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission). In most
=cases, common carrier protection comes with some form of government
=regulations. That's one of the big (biggest) reasons the on-line vendor's
=lawyers get really strained looks on their faces when someone mentions
=becoming a common carrier.
The basic regulation is, if you're a common carrier, then you have to carry
anything that anybody pays for. Period.
Scott Erb
On Sun, 20 Nov 1994, Obscurity wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if conspircy laws would apply in some of the more
> > organized and serious flames.
>
> Sheesh, I'm glad I don't live in America.
>
> Yuu're an asshole. Sue me.
Who is Yuu're? What kind of name is that? If Yuu're is out there, can
he or she let us know if they are going to sue "Obscurity?"
Scott Erb
On Fri, 18 Nov 1994, Dan Grazier wrote:
> > That sounds quite close to the average flame. I agree with your
> >interpretation wholeheartedly and hope that more such legal actions occur
> >with much greater frequency.
>
> > Steve
>
> Uhh, has anyone here heard of the 1st ammendment?
The first amendment doesn't protect libelous or slanderous speech; its
focus is on political speech. I don't agree with suing flamers, but the
first amendment isn't necessarily the best protection. Though prehaps
everyone should add some political content to their flame to make it
protected speech...
Unprotected: "You fake your research, you asshole."
Protected:??? "You fake your research in order to promote the cause of
world socialism, you asshole".
MARSHALL DUDLEY
-> I heard something recently; I heard that if the US had -MORE- lawyers, we'd
-> be better off. Anyone have an opinion on that?
You can group profesions into two groups. The firt group produces wealth, and
the second groups does not produce wealth, but simply redistributes it.
Scientists, engineers, assembly line workers, farmers and most jobs produce
wealth. These professions benefit everyone, and the wealth of the nation is
increased. The other group redistributes wealth, producing none. The wealth of
the nation is either unchanged or decreased by them. Burglers, bankers,
politicians and lawyers fall into the second catagory. None of them produce
anything tangable (useable, eatable and so forth). I am not saying they are
not necessary, but if the world only had the second group, we would all
starve and freeze, and no one would own anything of any value.
Marshall
Jack Sarfatti
writes:
>If an individual post does not constitute defamation, a collection of
>(nearly-) identical posts do not constitute defamation, either.
>
Your assuming the principle of linear superposition or, perhaps,instead,
no interaction between the posts in which "More is different" to quote
PW Anderson.
>>
>>> As to what is viewed as true that varies I'm sure from reader to
>>>reader.
You mean "truth" is not a frame invariant? Plato disagrees!
>>
>>Well, for defamation (libel or slander), it doesn't really matter
whether the
>>allegedly defamatory statement was considered true by the readership;
what
>>really matters is whether it is considered true by the jury hearing
the case.
A nice operational definition.
>
Jim Leary
|>
|> > The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
|> > encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment.
Are you really trying to write this:
"Until there are guarantees that my postings will go unchallenged, I will
continue to use every harassment tactic I can think of in order to
stifle any and all criticism of said postings."
... or am I mistaken? It's possible you know - I've been wrong before.
-Jim
(no disclaimer necessary - see U.S. Constitution, First Amendment.)
Obscurity
sarf...@ix.netcom.com "Jack Sarfatti" writes:
Really ? It's news to me. Got any details anyone ?
I was actually commenting on the apparent American love of lawsuits, btw.
--
Obscurity.
"A flash of steel and a scream of pain. The pain is short and won't come again
A spray of red and a glare of white, replaced by black like the darkest night."
Obsc...@burnout.demon.co.uk "It's just like always coming down" - A.E.
Andrew Royle
defined differently in different countries. England has really tight libel
laws, in the US you have constitutionally guarranteed free speech, in
Australia we have moderate libel laws, but the racial villification act may
get you, or verbal assault etc...etc... So it might be an idea simply to
avoid ad hom. attacks and simply flame the arguement. Wouldn't that be a
refreshing change:)
Khatt
^^/^^
Seth Breidbart
Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
> At the time I contacted his employer he was representing
>TMC without a disclaimer.
If you had someone read you the postings that all new users are
supposed to read before they start spewing onto the net, you'd find
that the default is that people are posting personally unless there is
some explicit statement otherwise.
Seth
J. S. Greenfield
>>If an individual post does not constitute defamation, a collection of
>>(nearly-) identical posts do not constitute defamation, either.
>
>Your assuming the principle of linear superposition or, perhaps,instead,
>no interaction between the posts in which "More is different" to quote
>PW Anderson.
You're going to have to explain to me what you're trying to say here...
For the record, the following quotes to which you responded were not from
me. (I just want to make that clear to anyone who might have been confused
about that.)
>>>> As to what is viewed as true that varies I'm sure from reader to
>>>>reader.
>
>You mean "truth" is not a frame invariant? Plato disagrees!
>
>>>
>>>Well, for defamation (libel or slander), it doesn't really matter
>whether the
>>>allegedly defamatory statement was considered true by the readership;
>what
>>>really matters is whether it is considered true by the jury hearing
>the case.
>
>A nice operational definition.
The jury has to believe that the statements were fals *and* the jury will
have to believe that some of the readers (or hearers) actually *believed*
the statements to be true (otherwise, there can be no damages).
Stan Ryckman
problem with this, I suggest E-mail.]
In article <3arjk8$k...@panix3.panix.com>,
This is true, and I hope that Mr. Boursy realizes that.
I went to check out the *newusers* stuff, and found that some
of it is really unclear, though, so don't hit new users too
hard!
The default assumption is, as you say, one speaks for himself or
herself only...whatever the return address. Some people do things
with .sig's. I change the "Organization:" header. Anyone who
thinks that "Ambers & Sneakers Fan Club" is in any way related to
my employer should get a neuron checkup.
Failure to disclaim, however, as you indicate, does _not_ imply
speaking for employer. What it may do, however, is cause confusion.
Employer's position may still also be awkward for other reasons.
I would hope that, in this particular case, the two parties
involved could at least agree to take future discussions re the
matter to e-mail. (Yeah, and I also hope to win the lottery...).
Cheers,
Stan "Mighty Moron" Ryckman.
john baez
>sarf...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>-> Yes, correct. The practical issue is that when commercial companies
>-> control the highway they will be the targets of libel suits so that they
>-> will have to censor flames in their own self interest. In other words,
>-> all the news groups will be moderated. Flames will have to be confined
>-> to private e-mail.
>If we were to hire censors to read each item[...]
Sarfatti did not suggest that newsgroups will be censored at the
receiving end, but instead that they will be moderated. For example,
Sarfatti frequently flames me on sci.physics (comparing me to a Nazi
stormtrooper, threatening to punch me in the face if I upset him, etc.),
but never in the moderated newsgroup sci.physics.research. The fact
that I am a moderator of sci.physics.research is probably only
coincidental. :-)
Kevin Darcy
Well, it sounds like you're asking for legal advice. Prudence compels me to
inform you that I'm not a lawyer. Hell, I'm not even a law student, just a
torts hobbyist of sorts...
My OPINION is that if you could prove that Mr. Suares was on the verge of
awarding you the business, and was dissuaded from doing so by Mr. Van Der
Leun's flames, then this is provable damage from libel, assuming that the
flames were actually libelous, i.e. that they asserted some fact which was
actually false, and which brought you into the disrepute which caused Mr.
Suares to avoid doing business with you. How would you go about proving this
dissuasion? By getting Mr. Suares up on the stand testifying that the only
reason he didn't give you the business was because of the flames he read from
Mr. Van Der Leun. Of course, this prompts the obvious question: if Mr. Suares
is so helpful in showing up to testify on your behalf at trial, why didn't he
co-operate in the first place by giving you the business even after reading
the flames? I imagine a crafty lawyer for the defendant might be able to sow a
seed of doubt in the jury's mind that maybe Mr. Suares never had any intention
in the first place of giving you the business, but you and he colluded, e.g.
made a pact to PRETEND that he intended to give you the business, on condition
that you'd split the libel award with him.
On the other hand, Mr. Suares might not be willing to testify to these facts
on the stand, since after all if he admits on the record that he made a verbal
contract with you, then this might mean that this would furnish you the means
to enforce your contract rights against HIM (although I imagine perhaps some
sort of "covenant to not sue" might help there, except that this might again
be cited as some sort of evidence of collusion). Without him testifying on your
behalf, though, it might be tough to convince a jury that you really would have
got the business "but for" the libellous actions of Mr. Van Der Leun.
In any case, at the risk of sounding like an ad for your local bar assocation
(the irony of that would be almost overwhelming!), if you really want to get
into this level of specifics, you should engage the services of a lawyer
licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. The most you're going to get here
on Usenet are vague/general, speculative and/or uninformed answers to your
questions, not something you can actually USE.
- Kevin
Chris Lewis
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>In article <1994Nov2...@sdg.dra.com>, se...@sdg.dra.com (Sean Donelan) writes:
>=In article <BZS.94No...@world.std.com>, b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>=> Trucking companies are generally common carriers (that's where the
>=> term comes from, common carriage) but they're certainly not regulated
>=> by the FCC.
>=They're regulated by the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission). In most
>=cases, common carrier protection comes with some form of government
>=regulations. That's one of the big (biggest) reasons the on-line vendor's
>=lawyers get really strained looks on their faces when someone mentions
>=becoming a common carrier.
>The basic regulation is, if you're a common carrier, then you have to carry
>anything that anybody pays for. Period.
That's hardly true. ICC trucking companies aren't required to carry
*anything* anyone's willing to pay for. Think highly dangerous cargo.
Similarly, while "common carrier" status for a communications provider
tends to protect the provider from having to actively monitor traffic,
it's not invulnerable armor once a provider becomes aware that illegal
traffic is being carried.
--
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_
Phone: Canada 613 832-0541 Ferret list: ferret-...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Latest psroff: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/psroff3.0pl17/*
Latest hp2pbm: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/hp2pbm/*
Jack Sarfatti
>Sarfatti did not suggest that newsgroups will be censored at the
>receiving end, but instead that they will be moderated. For example,
>Sarfatti frequently flames me on sci.physics (comparing me to a Nazi
>stormtrooper, threatening to punch me in the face if I upset him,
etc.),
>but never in the moderated newsgroup sci.physics.research. The fact
>that I am a moderator of sci.physics.research is probably only
>coincidental. :-)
>
>
It is false that I frequently flame Boozie in sci.physics. I don't
remember comparing him to a "Nazi stormtrooper", I think he fantasized
that. I did compare him to a "Spanish Inquisitor" in the comic sense of
Gilbert and Sullivan's Gondoliers. What Boozie fails to mention is that
I never, never, never have initiated any flames against him, but have
only responded or reacted to his initial napalm attacks against me! I
don't think I threatened to punch him specifically in the face - I
would have said "nose" but I do recall warning that I would kick him in
the behind -- more like a vigorous spanking - but he might like that!
Nevertheless, I am eating my cans of spinach and having a lot of Olive
Oil -- and I always wear my sailor cap that Robyn Williams gave me. :-)
Jack Sarfatti
writes:
>
>In article <3aqg5p$k...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> sarf...@ix.netcom.com
(Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>>>If an individual post does not constitute defamation, a collection of
>>>(nearly-) identical posts do not constitute defamation, either.
>>
>>Your assuming the principle of linear superposition or,
perhaps,instead,
>>no interaction between the posts in which "More is different" to quote
>>PW Anderson.
>
>You're going to have to explain to me what you're trying to say here...
>
I mean whereas one insult may not cuase too much damage to its intended
victim - a pattern of them might. For example, Boozie may call me a
crackpot once in sci.physics without too much damage, but if kept doing
it many times the cumulative effect could be very damaging. The whole is
greater than the simple sum of its parts in these social issues with
nonlinear responses.
Mike Knell
Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <785339...@burnout.demon.co.uk> Obsc...@burnout.demon.co.uk
>(Obscurity) writes:
>>Sheesh, I'm glad I don't live in America.
>>
>I thought England has just enacted some sort of Internet censorship just
>a few weeks ago????
Well, if they did nobody's got around to telling the UK net community, or
indeed anybody at all, about it.
News to me...
-- mpK.
--
+--- Mike Knell --- Squashed Lagomorpha on the Information Superhighway(tm) --+
| Vending machines should NEVER NEVER EVER| SMTP thang: m...@frink.demon.co.uk |
| eat money.- RFC1288 (Finger)| <a href="mailto:m...@frink.demon.co.uk">..</a> |
| PGP public key on request or from the usual servers..AI$()*U)TJO$THFJKHEFW? |
Kevin Darcy
Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>In article <3aq5l7$m...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <1994Nov2...@sdg.dra.com>, se...@sdg.dra.com (Sean Donelan) writes:
>>=In article <BZS.94No...@world.std.com>, b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>=> Trucking companies are generally common carriers (that's where the
>>=> term comes from, common carriage) but they're certainly not regulated
>>=> by the FCC.
>
>>=They're regulated by the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission). In most
>>=cases, common carrier protection comes with some form of government
>>=regulations. That's one of the big (biggest) reasons the on-line vendor's
>>=lawyers get really strained looks on their faces when someone mentions
>>=becoming a common carrier.
>
>>The basic regulation is, if you're a common carrier, then you have to carry
>>anything that anybody pays for. Period.
>
>That's hardly true. ICC trucking companies aren't required to carry
>*anything* anyone's willing to pay for. Think highly dangerous cargo.
>
>Similarly, while "common carrier" status for a communications provider
>tends to protect the provider from having to actively monitor traffic,
>it's not invulnerable armor once a provider becomes aware that illegal
>traffic is being carried.
Indeed. What you DO know can hurt you; what you DON'T know is completely
harmless. I've always thought this particular principle of law was rather
perverse the way it essentially rewards ignorance...
- Kevin
Hugh LaMaster
It is even worse than you describe, though, because in the U.S.,
especially on Usenet, but also in hallways, in the press, etc.
it is quite common to say things like "Joe Blow is ranting and
raving", "You're Crazy!" "He's a Crackpot!" etc. All these
things mean is that the person being referred to needs to
reconsider his opinion. But, we don't usually say,
"You need to reconsider your opinion." We say, "You're Crazy!"
A more specific example. Suppose I remark to someone,
"You're crazy! You better stop taking so many little white
pills!" All this means in American speech is, "I disagree
with you." It is laughable to consider it slander. On
the other hand, if I were to say to a colleague that
"Joe Blow is addicted to amphetamines" in a serious
tone of voice when Joe was not present it might be slander.
[If there is a Joe Blow out there somewhere: this is
purely hypothetical!]
If everyone were to realize that Usenet has taken this
(old) convention to vast new heights, we could stop
worrying about all this.
Usenet is bulletin-board, not a scholarly journal.
In fact, not even an unscholarly journal.
Relax everybody, take a deep breath, and "enjoy".
--
Hugh LaMaster, M/S 233-9, UUCP: ames!lamaster
NASA Ames Research Center Internet: lama...@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 Or: lama...@george.arc.nasa.gov
Phone: 415/604-1056 #include <std_disclaimer.h>
DaveHatunen
Kevin Darcy <ke...@cfc.com> wrote:
[...]
>Indeed. What you DO know can hurt you; what you DON'T know is completely
>harmless. I've always thought this particular principle of law was rather
>perverse the way it essentially rewards ignorance...
Common Carrier as a status was not invented to reward ignorance, but to
promote commerce, which was felt to be good for society at large. Those
who carry large quantities, be it freight or data, cannot be held
accountable for the contents of that freight or data for the simple
reason that if the carrier had to inspect every item the commerce would
slow to a crawl, and that is considered not so good for society.
Or you end up with something like the situation with foreign journals
in Singapore.
When I was young you still occasionally saw news reports about someone
being arrested for using obscenities over the telephone. The front of
the phone book even warned against it. And yes, the local telco did
eavesdrop.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *
*******************************************************
Carl M Kadie
[...]
>The first amendment doesn't protect libelous or slanderous speech; its
>focus is on political speech.
[...]
I personally think the 1st Amendment covers more than political
speech, but in any case, libel and political speech are often
related.
Also look for this quote below:
[The Court has] no difficulty in distinguishing among defmation
plaintiffs. The first remedy of any victim of defamation is
self-help--using available opportunities to contradict the lie or
correct the error and thereby to minimize its adverse impact on
reputation.
======================================
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Excerpts from the opinion (by Justice Will Brennan):
"[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national
commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include
vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on
government and public officials."
"[An] erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate [...] if the
freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' [that they
need to survive]"
"What a state may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal
statute is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law of libel. The fear
of damage awards under a rule such as that invoked by the Alabama courts
here may be markedly more inhibiting than the fear of prosecution under
a criminal statute...."
From Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) (Majority opinion by Justice Powell:
"In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or
notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all
contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or
is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a
public figure for a limited range of issues. In either case such
person assume special prominence in the resolution of public
questions.
[...]
[The Court has] no difficulty in distinguishing among defmation
plaintiffs. The first remedy of any victim of defamation is
self-help--using available opportunities to contradict the lie or
correct the error and thereby to minimize its adverse impact on
reputation. Public officials and public figures usually enjoy
significantly greater access to the channels of effective
communication and hence have a more realistic opportunity to
counteract false statements than private individuals normally enjoy.
Private individuals are therefore more vulnerable to injury, and the
state interest in protecting them is correspondingly greater."
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= Email: ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
= URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>
Christopher Green
>In article <CzHtG...@world.std.com>,
>bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>:
>: The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
>:encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment. With free speech
>:comes responsibility and libel laws protect our rights to free
>:speech--they do not discourage it.
>
>Just because someone calls you a "speed bump" or an asshole, or
>worse. To prove libel, you have to prove that it's false.
Close. To _prove_ libel, you have to prove that it was published and that
you were defamed. To _defend_against_ a charge of libel, you have to
prove that it was true (if you're using truth as a defense).
[snip]
Disclaimer: I'm a businessman, not a lawyer, and my words aren't legal advice.
Any advice you get over the Usenet is worth just what you paid for it anyway.
Chris Green Consulting Systems Analyst
AMINTEL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Machine Intelligence
111 Pacifica, Suite 250 Phone (714) 727-2493
Irvine, CA 92718-3311 Fax (714) 727-2495
DaveHatunen
Christopher Green <ami...@nic.cerf.net> wrote:
>In article <DIgpkKZH...@netcom.com> sko...@netcom.com (Stan Koper) writes:
>>In article <CzHtG...@world.std.com>,
>>bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>>:
>>: The fact that attorneys are finally getting interested in this is
>>:encouraging and may lead to a more civil environment. With free speech
>>:comes responsibility and libel laws protect our rights to free
>>:speech--they do not discourage it.
>>
>>Just because someone calls you a "speed bump" or an asshole, or
>>worse. To prove libel, you have to prove that it's false.
>
>Close. To _prove_ libel, you have to prove that it was published and that
>you were defamed. To _defend_against_ a charge of libel, you have to
>prove that it was true (if you're using truth as a defense).
Indeed.
And to get any recovery to help you pay for all those legal expenses it
took to win, you have to prove the damages that you are trying to
recover for. It is quite possible to win the great moral victory of a
US$1.00. You will still have to pay your lawyer.
cloy tobola
>>:speech--they do not discourage it.
NOPE. Consult any First Amendment theorist or Classical Liberal scholar
-- responsibility IS NOT a precondition for exercising First Amendment
rights. In the minds of the Classical Liberals, all ideas should be
allowed -- even the false, inaccurate and irresponsible ones... truth
would win out in the end.
After winning a case against the University of Minnesota (Stanley v.
McGrath, 719 F. 2d 279, 280), Kate Stanley, editor of the Minnesota Daily
made a comment about the student press that applies well:
"I've come to think that student newspapers are the First Amendment's best
defenders. Who else is willing to test the amendment's boundries so
regularly and so vigorously?.... Its obstinancy is a reminder that press
responsibility is not a precondition for press freedom." (Quoted in
Gillmor, The Fragile First, 9 Hamline L. Rev. 277. May 1985)
I don't have the citations handy, but I know that in several cases the
Supreme Court has ruled that accuracy is not a precondition for First
Amendment protection of free speech.
-Cloy D. Tobola
cloy-...@uiowa.edu
Jack Sarfatti
tobola) writes:
>
>>>In article <CzHtG...@world.std.com>,
>>>bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
>>>:
>>>:With free speech
>>>:comes responsibility and libel laws protect our rights to free
>>>:speech--they do not discourage it.
>
>NOPE. Consult any First Amendment theorist or Classical Liberal scholar
>-- responsibility IS NOT a precondition for exercising First Amendment
>rights. In the minds of the Classical Liberals, all ideas should be
>allowed -- even the false, inaccurate and irresponsible ones... truth
>would win out in the end.
For the record, this is my position:"all ideas should be
Stan Ryckman
On USENET:
all ideas are allowed -- even the false, inaccurate and irresponsible
ones... the most persistent and LOUDEST speaker will win out in the
end.
:-)
Seriously,
Aaack. I'm getting tired of all this 1st Amendment stuff. In case
anyone cares (sorry, non-US lurkers), it only prohibits Congress
from passing certain laws. It does not address libel at all. The
exact text is:
:1st Amendment
: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
:or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
:speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
:assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That's it! Quoted from the the copy I got from the EFF's ftp.
A copy of the U.S. constitution is available from ftp.eff.org
in /pub/EFF/Policy/Legislation/Freedom_Shrine/constitution.usa.
Or E-mail me if you can't ftp, and I'll send you my copy (it's
just under 46 Kbytes).
Note that I am removing ne.{general,politics} from followups;
this has nothing to do with New England. I probably should
trim further, but hesitate to trim groups I'm _not_ familiar
with. (I somehow think this has gone to the point where it's
off-topic in _every_ USENET group! :-))
Cheers,
Stan.
Jim Rogers
<>>In article <CzHtG...@world.std.com>,
<>>bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
<>>:
<>>:With free speech
<>>:comes responsibility and libel laws protect our rights to free
<>>:speech--they do not discourage it.
<NOPE. Consult any First Amendment theorist or Classical Liberal scholar
<-- responsibility IS NOT a precondition for exercising First Amendment
<rights. In the minds of the Classical Liberals, all ideas should be
<allowed -- even the false, inaccurate and irresponsible ones... truth
<would win out in the end.
...
< I don't have the citations handy, but I know that in several cases the
<Supreme Court has ruled that accuracy is not a precondition for First
<Amendment protection of free speech.
Perhaps Mr. Boursy is confused about what is generally meant by
"responsibility" in the adage "with rights go responsibilities" (or, in
G.B Shaw's version, "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men
dread it").
It simply means you must accept the consequences for your own actions,
which you expect the freedom to exercise. "Consequences" does not imply
legal action punishing you for legally-protected behavior. The word
implies things like hurting someone's feelings or reputation when you
hurl insults, having to hire private bodyguards if you demand to be
"free" of a publicly-funded police force, having to maintain and buy gas
for your car if you want to drive it, earning the disdain of your
neighbors when you paint your house day-glo orange, etc. "Responsibility"
simply means doing what you must with your freedoms to attain the
consequences you desire while avoiding those you don't. Your Mom stops
picking up after you when you flee the nest.
In no way does "free speech" imply "libel laws." It opens wide the
possibility of libel, which libel laws are meant to "correct" by
qualifying the word "free." For the context-challenged, this translates
as libel laws making speech *less* free.
Jim (speaking only for me, as always unless noted, Mr. Boursy)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to
always reach my destination." -- Jimmy Dean
Stephen Boursy
Jim Rogers <grim...@VNET.IBM.COM> wrote:
>In no way does "free speech" imply "libel laws." It opens wide the
>possibility of libel, which libel laws are meant to "correct" by
>qualifying the word "free." For the context-challenged, this translates
>as libel laws making speech *less* free.
I'd argue that libel laws don't make speech *less* free but
instead are a necessity to protect our right to free speech and to avoid
violent (or should we say more violent) alternatives and thus make our
speech more *more* free. The courts seems to agree with this. If there
were no limitations on speech our right to it wouldn't last very long.
>Jim (speaking only for me, as always unless noted, Mr. Boursy)
Even if you weren't speaking for just yourself your views are
expressed in a manner that would not reflect poorly on a sponsoring
corporatiton. That's a critical difference.
But to get back to the free speech and responsibility part--If I
and some cohorts desided to make public claim that the precessors in IBM
computers were all defective and did so in a fashion that other might
believe it (and rest assured I am not making that claim and have a high
regard for IBM products) would you not say that some legal action would
be call for?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to
> always reach my destination." -- Jimmy Dean
Yes--but the arrival point is still always quite different from
the intended destination.
Steve
Jim Rogers
<>In no way does "free speech" imply "libel laws." It opens wide the
<>possibility of libel, which libel laws are meant to "correct" by
<>qualifying the word "free." For the context-challenged, this translates
<>as libel laws making speech *less* free.
...and responded:
<;I'd argue that libel laws don't make speech *less* free but
<instead are a necessity to protect our right to free speech and to avoid
<violent (or should we say more violent) alternatives and thus make our
<speech more *more* free. The courts seems to agree with this.
You have a rather novel definition of the word "free." "Free" does not
imply immunity from consequences; in this context we are speaking about
legal freedom. "Free" implies no law interferes. Libel laws, necessary or
not, most certainly interfere legally with your ability to speak. The
only way you can say libel laws enhance speech freedom is by spelling out
in the law certain boundaries beyond which a person is not allowed to
claim that someone else's speech is harmful. But if the libel laws didn't
exist in the first place such claims aren't allowed at all; libel laws
*enable* one to claim that words alone cause harm, and to be recompensed
for it through forceful action (i.e. violence) of the state. That this
curbs "alternative violence" is an indirect effect; a law to directly
protect freedom of speech might address that violence, instead.
< If there
<were no limitations on speech our right to it wouldn't last very long.
What wouldn't last long? The result may be that you'd be exposed to
suffering violent retribution for careless speech, but what harm is that
to your legal "right to it"? "Rights" don't imply immunity from all
consequences.
<;Even if you weren't speaking for just yourself your views are
<expressed in a manner that would not reflect poorly on a sponsoring
<corporatiton. That's a critical difference.
Well, we *do* have business conduct guidelines which ask that my actions
"not reflect poorly" (including day-to-day activities in which my
association with IBM is known), but never, ever, should my participation
here be construed as "sponsored" in a sense that IBM or any of the
network providers is at all responsible for what I say, any more than
they are responsible for how I drive my car in their parking lot. There
is little reason to repeatedly obscure this default assumption the way
you do. Officially-sponsored remarks are always made clear.
<;But to get back to the free speech and responsibility part--If I
<and some cohorts desided to make public claim that the precessors in IBM
<computers were all defective and did so in a fashion that other might
<believe it (and rest assured I am not making that claim and have a high
<regard for IBM products) would you not say that some legal action would
<be call for?
I am surprised you ask this so pointedly. Surely you must know I could
not possibly express an opinion on what legal response by my employer
might be appropriate for slurring the quality its products. My speech is
not quite that "free" in this matter! ;-)
There is always counter-advertising to call you and your cohorts liars,
presenting one's case to the public.
But I have not claimed and am not claiming that libel/slander laws are
not appropriate (I'm reserving my opinion on that). I've only been
addressing the question of whether a law punishing careless behavior can
be construed as protecting one's freedom to that behavior. Lawyers have
invented this type of doublespeak to quell the masses from complaining
too much about increasingly intrusive laws, while enabling them to invent
more reasons to sue for huge sums.
It's reached the point where no injury is construed as self-caused or
reasonably unavoidable, there must always be someone with deep pockets
who failed to protect us from injury. This is not "freedom to act." This
is "freedom from consequences." True freedom implies incurring natural
consequences, enjoying the full benefit or suffering the harm therefrom.
<>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<>"I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to
<> always reach my destination." -- Jimmy Dean
<;Yes--but the arrival point is still always quite different from
<the intended destination.
Then you entirely miss the point of that quote, as your "but" completely
contradicts it. Ask any sailor to explain it to you. I chose it because
it exemplifies the true meaning of "responsibility," that is, to reach
your intended destination by judicious choices, instead of cursing an
uncooperative wind.
Jim (for Jim)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Security is mostly superstition. It does not exist in nature.
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Jack Sarfatti
defamatory flames recorded for posterity in alt.usenet.kooks by a maniac
named David Delaney (particulalry his spreading of a totally false story
about me and Murray Gell-Mann which never took place), and partly
because I am becoming an electronic commercial publisher and banker on
World Wide Web. I will have a MOSAIC virtual store front in Feb 95 and
will be able to safely collect money directly by credit card using
public key cryptography. I will be offering for sale multimedia of my
own authoring as well as that of other people in the area of
science-related edutainment. Therefore, I am interested in the
possibility of libel suits against me in the course of that commercial
activity. I would now like to shift this thread into a more productive
channel - on how to make money with information on the new emerging
commercial World Wide Web. I welcome collaborators and investors since
the more money to put in the more bandwidth and the more sales.
David DeLaney
|I started this thread for several reasons. Partly piqued by John Baez's
|defamatory flames recorded for posterity in alt.usenet.kooks by a maniac
|named David Delaney (particulalry his spreading of a totally false story
|about me and Murray Gell-Mann which never took place),
I'm only a maniac when I've had more than one cup of coffee. Or too much sugar.
I'm about halfway through a box of Luden's cherry cofdrops, though...
and partly
|because I am becoming an electronic commercial publisher and banker on
|World Wide Web. I will have a MOSAIC virtual store front in Feb 95 and
|will be able to safely collect money directly by credit card using
|public key cryptography. I will be offering for sale multimedia of my
|own authoring as well as that of other people in the area of
|science-related edutainment.
Mmf. This should be interesting to watch, for any of several reasons.
Therefore, I am interested in the
|possibility of libel suits against me in the course of that commercial
|activity.
Double mmf. I'll predict: Threats of libel suits / libel suits > N for any
humanly namable number N, at least in the near future.
Dave "De*L*aney" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableWIKTHLC
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / CanterSiegelKibozeBait!!
Paul Phillips
>I will have a MOSAIC virtual store front in Feb 95
Cool! How do you force everyone to use Mosaic?
>I would now like to shift this thread into a more productive
>channel - on how to make money with information on the new emerging
>commercial World Wide Web.
You have certainly chosen an appropriate set of newsgroups for
such a discussion.
-Paul "uh, yeah" Phillips
--
"The 'god' of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE OF RENEGADE SPACE
CANNIBALS [...]"
-- Robert McElwaine
Jack Sarfatti
>
>In article <3bgd59$9...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> sarf...@ix.netcom.com
>(Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>>I will have a MOSAIC virtual store front in Feb 95
>
>Cool! How do you force everyone to use Mosaic?
I come down from the Mountain holding two big boxes of MOSAIC! And I
say, If you don't use MOSAIC you ain't kosher! :-)
Rabbi Sarfatti
You dummie! Ask a stupid question like that! :-)
R Agent
Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
[...]
> But to get back to the free speech and responsibility part--If I
You have cohorts? Scary thought.
RA
ro...@ccs.neu.edu (Rogue Agent/SoD!/TOS/KoX/ACT Kha Khan) - pgp key on request
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.
Stephen Boursy
Jim Rogers <grim...@VNET.IBM.COM> wrote:
><bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) wrote:
><I'd argue that libel laws don't make speech *less* free but
><instead are a necessity to protect our right to free speech and to avoid
><violent (or should we say more violent) alternatives and thus make our
><speech more *more* free. The courts seems to agree with this.
>
>You have a rather novel definition of the word "free." "Free" does not
>imply immunity from consequences; in this context we are speaking about
>legal freedom. "Free" implies no law interferes. Libel laws, necessary or
>not, most certainly interfere legally with your ability to speak.
We agree on this and your right to point it out.
>The
>only way you can say libel laws enhance speech freedom is by spelling out
>in the law certain boundaries beyond which a person is not allowed to
>claim that someone else's speech is harmful. But if the libel laws didn't
>exist in the first place such claims aren't allowed at all; libel laws
>*enable* one to claim that words alone cause harm, and to be recompensed
>for it through forceful action (i.e. violence) of the state. That this
>curbs "alternative violence" is an indirect effect; a law to directly
>protect freedom of speech might address that violence, instead.
Again we seem to agree. In terms of violence though there is
something appealing about the days of duels. The previous post in
ne.general just implied I was an arsonist because of my political
positions on rent contol (in ne.general).
>< If there
><were no limitations on speech our right to it wouldn't last very long.
>
>What wouldn't last long? The result may be that you'd be exposed to
>suffering violent retribution for careless speech, but what harm is that
>to your legal "right to it"? "Rights" don't imply immunity from all
>consequences.
I guess violent retribution as an alternative to lible law is not
harmful to your legal 'right' to free speach. But lible law is a better
way to go and as you just stated "Rights don't imply immunity from all
consequences". I would extend that to include that even a bozo who
accused political opponants of arson has a right to expect freedom from
physical harm.
><;Even if you weren't speaking for just yourself your views are
><expressed in a manner that would not reflect poorly on a sponsoring
><corporatiton. That's a critical difference.
>
>Well, we *do* have business conduct guidelines which ask that my actions
>"not reflect poorly" (including day-to-day activities in which my
>association with IBM is known), but never, ever, should my participation
>here be construed as "sponsored" in a sense that IBM or any of the
>network providers is at all responsible for what I say, any more than
>they are responsible for how I drive my car in their parking lot. There
>is little reason to repeatedly obscure this default assumption the way
>you do. Officially-sponsored remarks are always made clear.
As with a corporate .sig for example. Many have resisted the
notion that using a corporate .sig without disclaimer is appropraite for
expressions of politics and even libel. But back to your care
analogy--yes, IBM would not be responsible for your driving your car in
their parking lot. However, if they allowed you to use a company car,
like a net account, and you have a know history of drunk driving, they
certainly have some responsibility there.
If it's allowed I think many would be very interested in a
posting of IBM's conduct guideline. It might help iniatiate some thought
amoungh some others.
><;But to get back to the free speech and responsibility part--If I
><and some cohorts desided to make public claim that the precessors in IBM
><computers were all defective and did so in a fashion that others might
><believe it (and rest assured I am not making that claim and have a high
><regard for IBM products) would you not say that some legal action would
><be call for?
>
>I am surprised you ask this so pointedly. Surely you must know I could
>not possibly express an opinion on what legal response by my employer
>might be appropriate for slurring the quality its products. My speech is
>not quite that "free" in this matter! ;-)
Why is it with all these computer companies out there IBM still
makes the best keyboards? Most clone keyboards need to be replaced when
received. Or is this a trade secret?
>There is always counter-advertising to call you and your cohorts liars,
>presenting one's case to the public.
But that costs money. Suppose the company referred to was a
small upstart strapped for cash. They could not afford this nec..
advertising campaign. And why should they have to spend a penny anyway
due to someone else's slander?
>But I have not claimed and am not claiming that libel/slander laws are
>not appropriate (I'm reserving my opinion on that).
Will be waiting.
>I've only been
>addressing the question of whether a law punishing careless behavior can
>be construed as protecting one's freedom to that behavior. Lawyers have
>invented this type of doublespeak to quell the masses from complaining
>too much about increasingly intrusive laws, while enabling them to invent
>more reasons to sue for huge sums.
Libel and defamation are in general more intrusive than a lawsuit.
I'd like to see more libel case not less unless the courts would consider
legalizing dualing again. Used to work.
Steve
Stephen Boursy
>In article <D013M...@world.std.com>,
>Stephen Boursy <bou...@world.std.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> But to get back to the free speech and responsibility part--If I
>>and some cohorts desided to[...]
>
>You have cohorts? Scary thought.
I've many and we've had a very busy week in Cambridge restoring
rent control.
Steve
Jim Rogers
<If it's allowed I think many would be very interested in a posting of
<IBM's conduct guideline. It might help iniatiate some thought
<amoungh some others.
I would imagine there's a version already prepared for public consumption
somewhere (more complete title would something like "IBM Business Conduct
Guidelines"), but I'm not sufficiently motivated to follow up on it. It'd
be a pretty large file. One general gist, though, is to avoid the
_appearance_ of impropriety even if everything is perfectly legit; this
goes far beyond legalities and is meant to protect the company's business
reputation with its customers and suppliers, as well as avoid actual
legal trouble.
So I'm not sure how much an example of an ultra-conservative set of
guidelines would help a discussion trying to define "libel" and when an
employee is officially representing her employer. If you're going to take
the discussion into general business conduct guidelines, though, the sci.
newsgroups, at least, probably are not at all interested.
Jim (speaking only for me)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If your ship doesn't come in, swim out to it." -- Jonathan Winters
Barry Perlman
|> As with a corporate .sig for example. Many have resisted the
|> notion that using a corporate .sig without disclaimer is appropraite for
|> expressions of politics and even libel.
What, this garbage again?
Okay, here goes:
It is the official position of the United Federation of Planets that
Steve Boursy, also known as Speed Bump, also known as ShitforBrains,
does indeed have a mind made of manure. While our scientists continue
to study the phenomenon, they are currently theorizing that Speed Bump's
cranium of crap results his from spending extended periods in his
peculiar favorite posture, with his head deeply inserted into his lower
bowel.
(This message was produced entirely by the brain of the organic creature
known as Barry Perlman, and is not endorsed by any thinking machine or
any corporate entity. Anyone who does not understand this without explicit
statement should consider a new career as a Speed Bump.)
=============================================================================
Barry Perlman Thinking Machines Corporation
per...@think.com 245 First Street
(617) 234-2756 Cambridge, MA 02142
Charles M Richmond
>bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) writes:
>|> As with a corporate .sig for example. Many have resisted the
>|> notion that using a corporate .sig without disclaimer is appropraite for
>|> expressions of politics and even libel.
per...@Think.COM (Barry Perlman) writes:
>What, this garbage again?
>Okay, here goes:
>It is the official position of the United Federation of Planets that
>Steve Boursy, also known as Speed Bump, also known as ShitforBrains,
>does indeed have a mind made of manure. While our scientists continue
>to study the phenomenon, they are currently theorizing that Speed Bump's
>cranium of crap results his from spending extended periods in his
>peculiar favorite posture, with his head deeply inserted into his lower
>bowel.
To whom it may concern:
Lest anyone think that Barry is being too harsh, I would like to give
some background info. Barry was not harsh on Steve until Steve attempted
to interfere with Barry's employment by complaining to Barry's employer
about .sigs and political posting. The sole reason for this behavior seemed
to be to protect Steve's subsidised rent by silencing the anti-rent control
proponents on the net. Steve had already been informed by numerous persons
that his ideas about .sigs were contrary to fact and the apropriate section
of the newuser faq had been posted for him twice as well as pointers to
rtfm.mit.edu which is the faq repository. Steve attemted to interfere with
the employment of others also, all in the service of a selfserving agenda.
In my years of using the internet I have seen some flames and flamers and I
have originated some flames myself that were pretty strong, but I have never
seen someone attempt to do such real harm to others as Steve Boursy has
attempted to do. Certainly as long as I am president of IIS Corp. the company
will not enter into any business relationship that involves Steve Boursy and
if appropriate , I would expect any associates of IIS Corp. to so advise
our current and future clients.
Charles Richmond
--
*****************************************************************************
* Charles Richmond Integrated International Systems Corporation *
* c...@asoko.iisc.com c...@world.std.com *
* Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications. *
Paul S. Sawyer
>In article <D0AnM...@world.std.com>, bou...@world.std.com (Stephen Boursy) writes:
>
>|> As with a corporate .sig for example. Many have resisted the
>|> notion that using a corporate .sig without disclaimer is appropraite for
>|> expressions of politics and even libel.
>
>
>What, this garbage again?
>
>Okay, here goes:
>
>It is the official position of the United Federation of Planets that
>Steve Boursy, also known as Speed Bump, also known as ShitforBrains,
>does indeed have a mind made of manure. While our scientists continue
>to study the phenomenon, they are currently theorizing that Speed Bump's
>cranium of crap results his from spending extended periods in his
>peculiar favorite posture, with his head deeply inserted into his lower
>bowel.
Careful. Up here in N.H., manure is something that's considered useful....
>(This message was produced entirely by the brain of the organic creature
>known as Barry Perlman, and is not endorsed by any thinking machine or
>any corporate entity. Anyone who does not understand this without explicit
>statement should consider a new career as a Speed Bump.)
>=============================================================================
>Barry Perlman Thinking Machines Corporation
>per...@think.com 245 First Street
>(617) 234-2756 Cambridge, MA 02142
"Corporate .sig"? This don' look like no "corporate .sig". Wouldn't a
"corporate .sig" have logos, fancy print, slogans, etc.? This looks
like a personal .sig which merely happens to include the poster's
corporate affiliation as convenient info for the reader... oh,
everybody already knows that? Everybody but one...? Nevermind. :-)
(and for the Severely Braindead, I am not a university.)
--
Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS - Paul....@UNH.edu
Telecommunications and Network Services - VOX: +1 603 862 3262
50 College Road - FAX: +1 603 862 4545
Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523
Stephen Boursy
Alan Brown <al...@papaioea.manawatu.planet.co.nz> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.941206221127.23348A-100000-100000-100000@erau>,
>John E. Luke <lu...@db.erau.edu> wrote:
>>The first amendment has very much to do with everything we can say,
>
>I understand the Finnish Constitution's 1st amendment is something to the
>effect of allowing Jews to own land.
>
And what exactly does the Finnish 1st amendment say?
>HINT: Usenet is not USAnet. ...