Re: [Leica] Freedom of expression and responsibility

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

>>As there is probably no precedent for trying to prove a libel or some
such case against a discussion in a Email list or even a newsgroup that
makes it hard to determine.<<

Libel in a setting like the LUG is distinctly different than the First
Amendment. Again, the First Amendment, like the other components of the Bill
of Rights, protect the individual against government action - not private
action. The only First Amendment rights present on the LUG (applying to
those who are posting from within the U.S.) are to be free from government
regulation. This, of course, assumes that the subject of your communication
is one which has First Amendment protection.

Libel and slander laws are changing because of the changing media of
communication. My guess is that forums like the LUG are more likely to give
rise to slander than libel. But these are areas of civil liability, not
criminal.

Bryan

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, May 31, 1999 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Freedom of expression and responsibility


> Bryan Caldwell wrote:
> >
> > As one of the resident attorneys here (ducking . . . <g> ), I need to
point
> > out that the First Amendment doesn't apply to this list. There are many
> > members who are not contributing from the United States, and, even in
the
> > U.S., the First Amendment protects against government regulation of
speech -
> > not the negative responses of others. As long as the government is not
> > regulating the content of the LUG, the First Amendment does not come in
to
> > play.
> >
> > Bryan
> >
> >snip
> I was wondering if because of the physical/technical structure of this
> group: being an Email Reflectorship we would have some more rights than
> a Newsgroup.
> A Newsgroup would seem to be a form of broadcasting but we are just a
> controlled distribution of E Mails. A group of friends sitting around
> talking; or 777 of them.
> As there is probably no precedent for trying to prove a libel or some
> such case against a discussion in a Email list or even a newsgroup that
> makes it hard to determine.
> Mark Rabiner