The relevant portion of the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press

Note that it says nothing about anyone or any institution except for Congress. Therefore, unless you are claiming that Congress is preventing you from posting, these claims about your "First Amendment rights" to post on a non-governmentally operated bulletin board are completely and utterly without foundation.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 01, 2000

Answers

Steve, Steve, their minds (all 5 neurons collectively, no 2 to rub together) are made up. Don't try to change them with facts.

Night train

-- jes a tired ol footballer (nighttr@in.lane), January 01, 2000.

Steve, am old person, just waking up. Hope to go a longer mile. alerting anyone, who might pause to listen, Let Freedom ring, for those who hear.

-- Paranoid In America (not@freedomring.com), January 01, 2000.

EXCUSE ME LADY (CAPS ON INTENDED) I got no service on your forum, because I only offered a story that happened to me today, of a hand pump well, and Grandchildren. I got "Less respect" on your forum, then I have encountered here. Pleeezze Shut up! and go awaaaay. You NOT would/could see the milk of human kindness, if it sat on your face.

-- Sick Up and Fed (with@ lady Logic.com), January 01, 2000.

Congress means anyone working for the Government. That means Judges, Police, Government Beaurocrats, etc. etc.

-- ... (...@...com), January 02, 2000.

Uh Steve....it says that Congress shall make NO LAW. Aren't all laws made that way? And laws, any laws are what governs us.

Are you implying that private citizens can make laws that revoke those rights as stated in the constitution? I hardly think so.

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

Cin,

You are confusing private property rights with 1st Amendment rights. That's OK most people do. You can't use private property (this forum) to say anything other than what the owners allow. You can't use their property to say what you want anymore than you can use their car for uses other than what they allow. Deal with it.

You can't go to work (if you work) and insult the customers. If you do, your employer can fire you and remove you from the real estate. The 1st Amendment doesn't say "all citizens shall yield their property to others so they my speak unfetered ."

-- no (no@no.com), January 02, 2000.

1. I am in no way referring to property rights.

2. Since when is the WWW privately owned property? 3. I'll say what I must. You do with that information what you will.

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

Steve, you are absolutely correct. The Sysops have every legal right to delete anything they want to if this is a privately operated board. Of course, just because it is their legal right doesn't necessarily mean it is the right thing to do. The Sysops have allowed a lot of ugliness to appear on this board unchallenged, from smears against the government and lies about Klinton trying to use y2k so he can institute martial law to death wishes for the Pollies. You might find some of the epithets thrown at Mr. Decker amusing. And y2k Pro put together a list of evil statements that the censors have allowed here. They let these statements go unchallenged, yet they are willing to censor a number of Polly posts. I don't understand why they feel the need for censorship if they feel confident in the their cause. Are they afraid that the Doomer World View can not compete with the Polly World View in a level playing field of ideas? I must note that censorship is not practiced at either BIFFY or Debunker's. The act of censorship seems to me to be an admission that they can not make convincing arguments with facts and logic and they need an unfair advantage to persuade their audience of the rightness of their cause.

But I agree with your basic point IF this is a totally private forum. I am not sure this is the case, however. I believe this forum resides at MIT and MIT does take government money. I don't know if any government money is used to subsidize, either directly or indirectly, the maintenance of the server or the building in which it resides. If this is the case, then one could make the argument that this forum is partially government sponsored and that the censorship would be illegal. I am not a lawyer and I don't know the specifics of the funding of the server and its maintenance. This ispure speculation on my part and I suppose the only way to settle it would be for someone who feels their rights have been violated to go to court. I would welcome input from any lawyers out there who can comment intelligently and give their legal reasoning on this matter. Does anyone know if there is any relevant case law on the issue?

There is another issue that I hope the Sysops have thought through before engaging in censorship. The fact that the Sysops are exerting a degree of editorial control over the forum may also expose them to legal liability for libel. If John Doe posts that company XYZ has been negligent in fixing their code and that they are sure to be toast, and if this is a false statement that damages the company, then the company could turn around and sue John Doe for libel. If the Sysops did not censor any of the posts here then they could not be held liable for John Doe's libelous statements. However, the fact that they are censoring some statements and not others does open them to liability. The relevant case is Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Services which held Prodigy to be a publisher. There is no doubt that a court looking at the record of what has been going on in this forum, would similarly hold the Sysops at TB2000 to be publishers as well and have the liability that comes with such a status. The following is a particularly relevant passage.

A finding that PRODIGY is a publisher is the first hurdle for Plaintiffs to overcome in pursuit of their defamation claims, because one who repeats or otherwise republishes a libel is subject to liability as if he had originally published it. [Cianci v. New Times Pub. Co., 639 F.2d 54, 61; Restatement, Second Torts s 578 (1977).] In contrast, distributors such as book stores and libraries may be liable for defamatory statements of others only if they knew or had reason to know of the defamatory statement at issue. [Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135, 139; see also Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes, 800 F.Supp. 928, 932.] A distributor, or deliverer of defamatory material is considered a passive conduit and will not be found liable in the absence of fault. [Auvil, supra; see also Misut v. Mooney, 124 Misc.2d 95 (claims against printer of weekly newspaper containing allegedly libelous articles dismissed in absence of any evidence that printer knew or had reason to know of the allegedly libelous nature of the articles).] However, a newspaper, for example, is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment and advertising. [Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258.]

The choice of material to go into a newspaper and the decisions made as to the content of the paper constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment (Id.), and with this editorial control comes increased liability.

Now, I would hate to see Diane or Chuck or BigDog sued for libel. As anyone who has read my debate with Hardliner knows, I am philosophically against libel suits over what is written on the net. So I don't want anyone to accuse me of encouraging a lawsuit against the Sysops. I am merely pointing out the state of the law as I know it. I am not endorsing it.

And again, I must point out that I am not a lawyer. I would welcome comments from are any lawyers out there who can correct any errors I have made in my understanding of the law. I would particularly welcome comments from Hardliner, if he is still around. I suspect that he may be particularly knowledgeable about this matter.

This site provides an interesting overview of internet law and comments on the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Services case.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), January 02, 2000.

Robin -

I am not a sysop on this board though I am on the Prep Forum, of course. I believe it would be next to impossible for anyone to sue the sysops of this forum successfully (not to mention they don't have enough assets between them to make it worthwhile - a key factor in our highly "ethical" culture). Nor should it be possible -- 99% of the deletions can be defended trivially as resistance of "denial of service attacks". Indeed, the individuals who perpetrated those attacks are probably in greater jeopardy. A simple reading of the posts that ARE permitted would have most judges and juries cracking up about the notion that poor souls are being "deleted".

You do make an interesting point about possible responsibility for statements made here by any poster that might later prove to have been libelous to some other entity.

Again, I believe the courts would throw any claim to this effect about this forum out immediately. Otherwise, there are literally tens of thousands of web sites and fora on the Net (perhaps hundreds of thousands), not to mention "publications" who will be exposed to such "litigation". IOW, TB2K is the least of the targets for such.

But it may well be true that someday, somewhere, this kind of issue will be debated legally with respect to the Internet. Since I have an intense interest in the ferocious battle up ahead about privacy on the Net, anyone who roused me to be involved adversarially might be quite surprised to discover that I have a very energetic ability and motivation to shape such a debate publically around the nation. Larry King, here we come.

But I'd much rather tend my garden, feed my goats and homeschool my children.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 02, 2000.

Robin,

This is a moderated forum, mostly deleting disruptors, trolls and the profane from the ongoing discussions. Read the guidelines! Now go check out other forums. Try the MicroSoft "Chat" and forum area. Do your own research homework (I did). Almost every net forum/ chat area has posting guidelines. If a corporation wants to take issue with TBY2K, then let them.

Read Philip Greenspun's "book." If a professor at MIT chooses to keep these forums running, after repeated complaints by the DeBunkey's, to even the President of MIT, well... he's made a choice, hasn't he? Live with it.

You can always leave, should you choose not to post here. Your choice.

And if you'd like to discuss libel, re-read the DeBunkers board. The "libelous" things said there about me, about Ed and any other Y2K activist, are highly "scandelous."

'Nuf said.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 02, 2000.

BigDog,

You wrote:

I am not a sysop on this board though I am on the Prep Forum, of course.

I'm glad you said that. I was under the mistaken impression that you were a Sysop here.

I believe it would be next to impossible for anyone to sue the sysops of this forum successfully (not to mention they don't have enough assets between them to make it worthwhile - a key factor in our highly "ethical" culture).

A key word here is successfully Sometimes the motive for the plaintiff of a lawsuit is not the defendant's money. Sometimes they want to sue the defendant just to get him to shut up and punish him for speaking out and they don't really care whether they win or lose. I know this from experience since I was the victim of such a SLAPP suit. Click on the link to my debate with Hardliner if you want to see more of what this type of suit is all about.

Nor should it be possible -- 99% of the deletions can be defended trivially as resistance of "denial of service attacks". Indeed, the individuals who perpetrated those attacks are probably in greater jeopardy.

I noticed last night a poster named William Casey repeatedly posting the same thread dozens of times entitled "Delete this Sysops". The content of the thread, if I remember correctly, was a profanity that added nothing to the debate. I see no problem with deleting this type of post. The flip side of the right to free speach is the right to read what others have written. By taking up so much space and forcing the threads with real content in them down the page, Casey was interfering with other;s right to read what has been written.

As I said above, there is no legal problem to banning anything that Casey writes on sight if the operations of TB2000 receive no governmental support, directly or indirectly. I am not sure if that is the case, however. If that is not the case then the question is much more tricky. Does his abuse of the First Ammendment rights give the Sysops the right to censor all his posts--even if he stops his abuses and posts sensibly? What if he apologized and promised not to abuse his rights in the future? Do the Sysops have the authority to to abridge someone's First Ammendmant rights, and if so do they have the right to abridge it forever? And who decides whether the poster has abused his First Amendmant rights? I don't have the time to read more than a small portion of what gets posted here so I don't know exactly what Y2k Pro did to make the Sysops feel that he stepped over the line. I do know that they don't want to let him post his list of venemous sayings here. But suppose he posted the list and posted it repeatedly because he wanted to make the point that a lot of venom was thrown at the Pollies and some evil people posted here. How often would be too often? Certainly, if he posted it every few seconds like William Casey did yesterday, then that would be too often. But how about if he posted it every few days? I don't think that would be unreasonable because not everyone reads TB2000 every day. He could then reach readers he missed the first time by posting it two or three times a week. I believe that this was the theory behind Stan Farinya's 14 days of Preps postings. If y2k Pro was posting the same post every few days and was deleted because of this while Stan Farinya was allowed to post his 14 days of preps that frequently, then the censorship would be based on the content of what was censored rather than the frequency of the posting. This would be a disturbing breach of First Ammendmant rights, again assuming that the First Ammendmant applied because TB2000 was operating with the support of government funds.

What would even be more disturbing is this: I do not know if the Sysops have set a policy that X repetitive posts a week would be allowed but that any more than X would be considered abusive. If they have made such a decision they should let us know. Otherwise, they will have acted as the legislature in passing the law and not informed posters of the law so they can avoid going over the line. They further have the power to enforce the law (perhaps arbitrarily) and judge who is guilty and how long their banishment (sentence) from TB2000 will be. Our government provides for a separation of powers to safeguard our rights. The same entity can not write a law, enforce it, and judge those who are accused of violating it. IF the First Ammendmant is protected here than I feel queezy about the same people being given too much power. Rights should not be so easy to abridge.

You mention that 99% of the deletions could be defended because of "denial of service requests". Even if this is true, it is the other 1% that could bite the Sysops in court.

You do make an interesting point about possible responsibility for statements made here by any poster that might later prove to have been libelous to some other entity.

Again, I believe the courts would throw any claim to this effect about this forum out immediately. Otherwise, there are literally tens of thousands of web sites and fora on the Net (perhaps hundreds of thousands), not to mention "publications" who will be exposed to such "litigation". IOW, TB2K is the least of the targets for such.

I am not so sure they would throw out the claims immediately. Prodigy lost in its case against Statton Oakmont. And some of the attacks here, especially against the Banking industry, have been quite viscious. My guess is that no one will actually sue because it would give more publicity to TimeBomb 2000 than they want. I hope that no one actually does sue. And I wouldn't like the chilling effect it would have on the internet any more than you do. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have a case.

But it may well be true that someday, somewhere, this kind of issue will be debated legally with respect to the Internet. Since I have an intense interest in the ferocious battle up ahead about privacy on the Net, anyone who roused me to be involved adversarially might be quite surprised to discover that I have a very energetic ability and motivation to shape such a debate publically around the nation. Larry King, here we come.

I have no doubt that you would be a Dogged fighter, and depending on the specifics of the case I might even join in the fight on your side.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), January 02, 2000.

FYI...

A burglar SUCCESSFULLY sued the owner of a home that he was burglarizing because he broke his leg on the property in the process. Anything is possible in a CA court of law.

For the record... I am on no one's side but my own. I am neither a polly nor a doomer. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's not necessarily right or wrong, but merely someone's perception of the world as they see it, shaped by many factors. I am interested in what EVERYONE has to say. I've enjoyed reading posts by Ladylogic as well as Bob, Andy, Nikoli and others. It doesn't mean that I believe everything that I read and agree with everyone's opinion. I form my own truth, what makes sense for me and what doesn't.

I do have the utmost respect for those who passionately stand up for what they believe in, in the face of adversity and ridicule. These people have courage and heart and will not be wishy-washy in their beliefs. At the same time they do not INSIST that others agree with them, they merely want to share their truth.

All of the world is NEVER going to agree in unison on everything. Let's just listen to what everyone has to say. If you open up your minds and be receptive, you may just hear something that makes a lot of sense to you.

Peace.....Cin

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

Diane,

I am surprised at your hostility, especially since I sent you mail alerting you to this post. In my mail to you I wrote

Much as I detest the censorship that goes on, I would not like to see you get tangled up in any legal action taken against you or the other Sysops over libel. Please let me know if anyone threatens you with libel because of the actions taken here. I am not a lawyer, but I will be happy to write a letter to whoever threatens you and use my limited powers of persuasion to convince them that this matter should be debated over the internet and not settled out in court. An unacceptable chilling of free speach occurs when differences are forced into the courtroom and I would hate to see that happen.

Perhaps you have been too busy and have not read my mail yet. But I think I made it clear that I would not want anyone to sue you for libel. Steve Heller started this thread as a theoretical discussion of First Ammendmant rights and I contributed my understanding of the law on these issues. I don't understand why you read that as an attack on you.

If a corporation wants to take issue with TBY2K, then let them.

Quite truthfully, I would rather not see a corportation go after TBY2K. I think the probability that any will do so is small, but the possibility exits. I was merely pointing out what the law is. I was not endorsing the law.

Read Philip Greenspun's "book." If a professor at MIT chooses to keep these forums running, after repeated complaints by the DeBunkey's, to even the President of MIT, well... he's made a choice, hasn't he? Live with it.

I have no problems with Philip Greenspun's choice. I do resent your lumping everyone who posts at the Debunking site together. Perhaps you are unaware of this, but Doc Paulie had originally complained to MIT about this site being on Greenspun's server. Quite a few of the Debunkies, including me, denounced him for this. Incidently, CPR was Doc Paulie's most vociferous critic.

You can always leave, should you choose not to post here. Your choice.

Now why should I want to leave a place with such a friendly Sysop ?

And if you'd like to discuss libel, re-read the DeBunkers board. The "libelous" things said there about me, about Ed and any other Y2K activist, are highly "scandelous."

If anyone said anything at Debunkers that was in error, then you are free to come over and post there to correct the record. I can't speak for anyone else there, but I would welcome you to do so. I can say that Doc Paulie will not delete your posts since it is the policy there to encourage debate.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), January 02, 2000.

Harlan Ellison wrote a short story. I'm not sure why I'm thinking about it since it has nothing to do with the censorship debate. Its title? "I Have No Mouth And I MUST Scream!"

Oh, and by the way, if anyone is interested in Doc Paulie's reasoning behind why he wanted this site kicked off of Greenspun's server, they can read this post

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), January 02, 2000.