From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Legal question re pseudonymity online
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:43:40 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <C0ICx4.18F@world.std.com> mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves) writes:
>     "Since the BELL makes it clear that users are responsi-
>     ble  for  what they post on the BELL, we  think  it  is 
>     important that they be identifiable."
>
>With a sigh, John proceeds to become a regular BELL user and 
>contributor under his real name.

It sounds like he agreed with their reasoning, and thus made a
decision to let his name be available.  He could have insisted
on pseudonymity, or not joined the system.  Instead he agreed
to their guidelines.

>Some time later, John participates in a debate on the BELL, 
>taking a clear stance on a very controversial issue.  A lurking 
>rabid fanatic with emotional problems takes silent exception to 
>John's comments, gets John's name from a message header, and 
>somehow finds John's address and phone number.  He makes phone 
>calls to John's answering machine, quoting from John's messages 
>on the BELL and threatening retaliation; later he drops by John's 
>house and lobs a molotov cocktail in through the window.  John's 
>house is badly damaged, and John is injured, suffers great pain, 
>loses income and requires expensive medical treatment.
>
>Infuriated and in desperate need of financial help, John sues the 
>BELL.  My question:  Does he have a case?

I would think he has a case only against the fanatic, not against the
BELL.  What if he wrote a controversial letter to the editor of a
newspaper that discourages anonymous letters -- could the newspaper be
held liable?  I doubt it.  "Users are responsible for what they post"... 

>Could he argue that if the BELL takes 
>upon itself the authority to decide who may or may not protect 
>themselves with a pseudonym, they must also accept at least 
>partial responsibility for the consequences?

Did they take it upon themselves, or did they suggest and did he concur?

>Suppose John can show that other BELL users have previously 
>suffered defamation, harassment or other problems as a result of 
>real-name exposure on the BELL, and that BELL management was 
>aware, or should have been aware, of at least some of these 
>problems.  Would this strengthen John's case?

If he can show that, *plus* that he was absolutely prevented (without
his agreement) from being pseudonymous because of who he was (or wasn't).
Even so, I don't think his case would be strengthened enough to win
because still it was he that wrote his words, and it is not reasonable
to expect that the management could guess the actions of a rabid fanatic.

>I realize that these questions may not have clear answers at this
>time, but I am looking forward to informed speculation. 

Sorry if I didn't give clear answers...  without evidence to the
contrary, it doesn't seem like he has much argument with the management,
though of course IANAL.

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8271 alt.amateur-comp:455 soc.culture.usa:9434 alt.activism:20002