Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 / QGSI 2.0; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!qubix!msc
From: msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow)
Newsgroups: net.news.stargate
Subject: Re: Legal liability & moderation
Message-ID: <1597@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 13:31:08 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.1597
Posted: Thu Feb  7 13:31:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 09:00:48 EST
References: <1972@sun.uucp> <921@amd.UUCP>
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, San Jose, CA
Lines: 26

> > ..the legal opinion in the usenix newsletter.  The conclusion on all
> > fronts was that the more moderation we do, the more legally liable we
> > will be, because that makes us look like a publication rather than a
> > common carrier.
> 
> I've always thought of a common carrier as being a point to point service,
> which stargate certainly isn't.
> -- 

I find the common carrier argument more persuasive than the publication and
moderation argument.  A new analogy can be made with the phone company's
talkline services where you dial a number and end up in a group conversation.
Clearly the same abuses that the satellite people are worried about could
happen on a talkline.  I am sure the phone company lawyers have researched
things carefully and they are confident that they will not be held liable if,
for example, one party in a group conversation libels someone.

I have yet to make up my mind on this issue.  One thing that strikes me about
the arguments for moderation is the sheer reasonableness of what is proposed.
This strikes a warning note.  You take a few reasonable steps, then a few more,
and suddenly you find yourself in trouble.  Nobody can oppress the people like
the people themselves.
-- 
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@qubix.UUCP,  qubix!msc@decwrl.ARPA
...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!qubix!msc